Wien Automatic System Planning

(WASP) Package
A Computer Code for
Power Generating System Expansion Planning

Version WASP-IV with User Interface

User’s Manual
Wien Automatic System Planning (WASP) Package
IAEA, VIENNA, 2006

Printed by the IAEA in Austria

February 2006
 FOREWORD

The IAEA has been supporting its Member States in studies of sustainable electricity system
expansion planning. These studies aim at incorporating peculiar features of electricity demand
and techno-economic features of alternative sources of electricity generation in modelling of
electricity generation system. Computation of environmental impacts of electricity generation
and modelling of environmental standards are essential parts of these studies. The IAEA has
developed the WASP-IV model (Wien Automatic System Planning package) for carrying out
such studies. This manual presents the latest version of WASP-IV model with a User
Interface. This interface provides a user-friendly environment for execution of the WASP-IV
model.

WASP was originally developed in 1972 for the IAEA by the Tennessee Valley Authority and
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the USA to analyse the economic competitiveness of
nuclear power in comparison to other sources of electricity generation in meeting electricity
requirements of a country or region in the medium- to long-term period. Many Member States
applied the model in their national and regional studies to analyse the issues of electric power
system expansion planning and the role of nuclear energy in particular. These applications
helped in development of the model into a very comprehensive planning tool for electric
power system expansion analysis. Over the period, WASP has been evolving to cater the
needs expressed by its users for modelling important issues that have been emerging in the
electric system planning. In 1979, WASP-III was released followed by WASP-III Plus in
1995.

The IAEA initiated work on WASP-IV with the cooperation of some Member States
following the recommendations of the Inter-Agency International Symposium on Electricity
and the Environment held in 1991 in Helsinki. Advisory group and consultancy meetings on
the subject were convened to identifying necessary enhancements to the model and
appropriate methodological approaches to address the new issues. Like its predecessors, the
WASP-IV version is designed to find the economically optimal expansion policy for an
electric utility system within user-specified constraints. It utilises probabilistic estimation of
system's production costs including costs of un-served energy and reliability. The model uses
linear programming technique for determining optimal dispatch policy satisfying exogenous
constraints on environmental emissions, fuel availability and electricity generation by some
plants. The dynamic programming method is applied for optimising the costs of alternative
system expansion policies.

The main features and enhancements incorporated in WASP-IV are:

Option for introducing constraints on environmental emissions, fuel usage and energy
generation. Each type of constraints can be introduced to a group of power plants; existing or
candidates. Liner programming technique is employed to determine an optimal dispatching of
plants satisfying these constraints. This option is very useful in view of increasing
environmental concerns and awareness of issues such as health impacts of air pollution,
regional acidification etc. As well in some cases, availability of a certain fuel for power
generation may be limited.

Representation of pumped storage plants to accommodate the increasing importance of

pumped storage plants and other energy storage technologies under development.

Fixed maintenance schedule. This option allows the user to specify a certain schedule
for annual maintenance of some of the plants in the system.
 Environmental emission calculation. WASP-IV version calculates environmental
emissions from electricity generation for each year and for each period within a year, based
on estimates of electricity generated by each plant and the user-specified characteristics of
fuels used.

Expanded dimensions for handling up to 90 types of plants and a larger number of

configurations (up to 500 per year and 5000 for the study period).

This manual presents the latest WASP-IV version with a User-Interface that has been
developed in the MS Windows system. The User-Interface provides a very convenient
environment for creation of case studies and alternative scenarios, preparation of input data,
execution of the model and review of the results. The WASP model is released to interested
Member States for their national studies on electric system expansion planning.

The manual provides detailed guidelines for operation of the WASP-IV model along with the
technical details. However, the reader of this manual is assumed to have experience in the
field of power generation expansion planning and to be familiar with all concepts related to
such type of analysis. Additional technical information on power generation expansion
planning can be found in the IAEA publications: “Expansion Planning for Electrical
Generating Systems, A Guidebook”, Technical Reports Series No. 241 (1984) and “User’s
Manual of WASP-III Plus”, Computer Manual Series No. 8 (1995).

All suggestions for improving this manual, based on user experience, are welcome and should
be addressed to:

Planning and Economic Studies Section, Department of Nuclear Energy,

Wagrame Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1

1.1. Background information..................................................................................... 1
1.2. Summary description of the WASP-IV computer code ..................................... 3
1.2.1. Calculation of costs................................................................................. 6
1.2.2. Dimensions of the WASP-IV computer program................................. 11
1.3. Description of WASP-IV modules ................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 2. EXECUTION OF WASP-IV................................................................ 15

2.1. Installation of wasp-iv computer code.............................................................. 15
2.2. Planning studies and cases................................................................................ 16
2.2.1. Create a new planning study................................................................. 16
2.2.2. Delete a planning study......................................................................... 18
2.2.3. Create a new case.................................................................................. 18
2.2.4. Delete a case ......................................................................................... 20
2.2.5. Backup a case........................................................................................ 21
2.2.6. Restore a case........................................................................................ 21
2.3. Fixed or variable expansion.............................................................................. 22
2.4. File system........................................................................................................ 23
2.5. Input data .......................................................................................................... 23
2.6. Common case data............................................................................................ 24
2.7. Execution of WASP-IV modules ..................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 3. EXECUTION OF LOADSY ................................................................ 27

3.1. Input/output files............................................................................................... 27
3.2. Input data preparation ....................................................................................... 27
3.3. Sample problem................................................................................................ 30
3.3.1. Input data .............................................................................................. 30
3.3.2. Printout.................................................................................................. 36

CHAPTER 4. EXECUTION OF FIXSYS................................................................... 43

4.1. Input/output files............................................................................................... 43
4.2. Input data preparation ....................................................................................... 43
4.3. Sample problem................................................................................................ 54
4.3.1. Input data .............................................................................................. 54
4.3.2. Printout.................................................................................................. 61

CHAPTER 5. EXECUTION OF VARSYS................................................................. 69

5.1. Input/output files............................................................................................... 69
5.2. input Data preparation ...................................................................................... 69
5.3. Sample problem................................................................................................ 79
5.3.1. Input data .............................................................................................. 79
5.3.2. Printout.................................................................................................. 81

CHAPTER 6. EXECUTION OF CONGEN................................................................ 87

6.1. Input/output files............................................................................................... 87
6.2. Input data preparation ....................................................................................... 87
6.3. Sample problem................................................................................................ 92
 6.3.1. Input data for a fixed expansion plan (CONGEN Run-1) .................... 92
6.3.2. Printout for a fixed expansion plan (CONGEN Run-1) ....................... 95
6.3.3. Input data for dynamic expansion plans ............................................. 102
6.3.4. Input data for the first dynamic expansion plan (CONGEN Run-
2) ......................................................................................................... 103
6.3.5. Input data for the last dynamic expansion plan (CONGEN Run-
3) ......................................................................................................... 106
6.3.6. Printouts for dynamic expansion plans............................................... 110

CHAPTER 7. EXECUTION OF MERSIM............................................................... 115

7.1. Input/output files............................................................................................. 115
7.2. Input data preparation ..................................................................................... 115
7.3. Sample problem.............................................................................................. 125
7.3.1. Input data for a fixed expansion plan (MERSIM Run-1) ................... 125
7.3.2. Printout for a fixed expansion plan (MERSIM Run-1) ...................... 130
7.3.3. Input data for dynamic expansion plans ............................................. 141
7.3.4. Printouts for dynamic expansion plans............................................... 142
7.3.5. Re-simulation of the optimum solution .............................................. 146

CHAPTER 8. EXECUTION OF DYNPRO .............................................................. 156

8.1. Input/output files............................................................................................. 156
8.2. Input data preparation ..................................................................................... 157
8.3. Sample problem.............................................................................................. 166
8.3.1. Input data for a fixed expansion plan (DYNPRO Run-1) .................. 166
8.3.2. Printout for a fixed expansion plan (DYNPRO Run-1)...................... 169
8.3.3. Input data for dynamic expansion plans ............................................. 175
8.3.4. Printouts for dynamic expansion plans............................................... 176
8.4. Special remarks on the DYNPRO capabilities ............................................... 183

CHAPTER 9. EXECUTION OF REPROBAT.......................................................... 184

9.1. Input/output files............................................................................................. 185
9.2. Input data preparation ..................................................................................... 185
9.3. Sample problem.............................................................................................. 195
9.3.1. Input data ............................................................................................ 195
9.3.2. Printout of REPROBAT of the optimal solution ................................ 198
9.4. Special remarks on the REPROBAT capabilities........................................... 237

CHAPTER 10. SEARCH FOR OPTIMAL SOLUTION ............................................ 242

10.1. Basic information ........................................................................................... 242
10.2. Input data validation and debugging: Running a predetermined expansion
plan ................................................................................................................. 242
10.3. Execution of a series of WASP runs for predetermined expansion plans ...... 250
10.4. Analysis of the optimal solution ..................................................................... 258

CHAPTER 11. EXECUTION OF SENSITIVITY STUDIES..................................... 260

11.1. Need to conduct sensitivity studies ................................................................ 260
11.2. What sensitivity analyses to conduct.............................................................. 261
11.3. How WASP-IV can be used to conduct sensitivity studies............................ 262
11.4. Practical steps for conducting sensitivity studies ........................................... 263
CHAPTER 12. TECHNICAL DETAILS OF NEW FEATURES OF WASP-IV....... 266
12.1. Multiple group-limitations.............................................................................. 266
12.1.1. Introduction......................................................................................... 266
12.1.2. A linear programming model.............................................................. 266
12.1.3. A heuristic method for generating the linear programming model .... 270
12.1.4. The case of multi-block representation of units.................................. 275
12.1.5. Allocation of annual limits for periods ............................................... 275
12.2. Representation of pumped-storage plants....................................................... 276
12.3. Maintenance scheduling ................................................................................. 279

CHAPTER 13. ERROR AND WARNING MESSAGES IN THE WASP-IV

CODE 281
13.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 281
13.2. Messages for common case data .................................................................... 283
13.3. Messages for LOADSY.................................................................................. 283
13.4. Messages for FIXSYS and VARSYS............................................................. 286
13.5. Messages for CONGEN ................................................................................. 296
13.5.1. Messages coming from MAIN ........................................................... 296
13.5.2. Special message coming from subroutine READFC.......................... 297
13.6. Messages for MERSIM .................................................................................. 302
13.6.1. Messages coming from MAIN ........................................................... 302
13.6.2. Special message coming from subroutine READFM and DIVLIM... 303
13.7. Messages for DYNPRO.................................................................................. 308
13.7.1. Messages coming from MAIN ........................................................... 308
13.7.2. Message coming from subroutine READFD...................................... 308
13.8. Messages for REPROBAT ............................................................................. 311
13.8.1. Messages coming from MAIN, INIT, INIT2A, FIXPLT,
NULED1 or CONCOS ....................................................................... 311

REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 315

CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW ........................................................... 317

 FIGURE

FIGURE 1.1 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CASH FLOWS FOR

AN EXPANSION PROGRAMME ................................................................... .9

FIGURE 1.2. SIMPLIFIED FLOW CHART OF THE WASP-IV COMPUTER

CODE ............................................................................................................... 13

FIGURE 2.1. MAIN SCREEN OF THE WASP-IV PROGRAM......................................... 16

FIGURE 2.2 PLANNING STUDY SELECTION SCREEN ................................................ 17

FIGURE 2.3 CREATE A NEW PLANNING STUDY ......................................................... 17

FIGURE 2.4 DELETE A PLANNING STUDY ................................................................... 18

FIGURE 2.5 CASE SELECTION SCREEN ......................................................................... 18

FIGURE 2.6 CREATE A NEW CASE ................................................................................. 20

FIGURE 2.7 DELETE A CASE STUDY ............................................................................. 20

FIGURE 2.8 BACKUP A CASE........................................................................................... 21

FIGURE 2.9 RESTORE A CASE ......................................................................................... 22

FIGURE 2.10 FIXED OR VARIABLE EXPANSION CASE STUDY ................................. 22

FIGURE 2.11 WASP MODULES SELECTION SCREEN.................................................... 24

FIGURE 2.12 COMMON DATA FOR THE ENTIRE CASE................................................ 24

FIGURE 3.1 MAIN SCREEN LOADSY .............................................................................. 27

FIGURE 3.2 LOADSY INPUT DATA MAIN SCREEN ..................................................... 28

FIGURE 3.3 LOAD DURATION CURVE GIVEN BY FIFTH-ORDER

POLYNOMIAL COEFFICIENTS ................................................................... 29

FIGURE 3.4 LOAD DURATION CURVE GIVEN BY POINTS........................................ 30

FIGURE. 3.5. (PAGE 1) WASP-IV LOADSY INPUT DATA FOR THE SAMPLE

PROBLEM. ...................................................................................................... 34

FIGURE 3.5. (PAGE 2) WASP-IV LOADSY INPUT DATA FOR THE SAMPLE ...........

PROBLEM. ...................................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 3.5. (PAGE 3) WASP-IV LOADSY INPUT DATA FOR THE SAMPLE ...........

PROBLEM ....................................................................................................... 36

FIGURE 3.6. (PAGE 1) LOADSY PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE .....................................

[Link] DESCRIPTION-1998....................................................... 38

FIGURE 3.6. (PAGE 2) LOADSY PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

LOAD DESCRIPTION – 1998. ....................................................................... 39

FIGURE 3.6. (PAGE 3) LOADSY PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

LOAD DESCRIPTION – 1999 ........................................................................ 40

FIGURE 3.6. (PAGE 4) LOADSY PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

INPUT INFORMATION FOR 2006................................................................ 41

FIGURE 3.6. (PAGE 5) LOADSY PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

LOAD DESCRIPTION – 2006 ........................................................................ 42

FIGURE 4.1. MAIN SCREEN FIXSYS ............................................................................... 43

FIGURE 4.2. FIXSYS INPUT DATA MAIN SCREEN....................................................... 44

FIGURE 4.3. FIXSYS EMISSIONS SCREEN ..................................................................... 46

FIGURE 4.4. FIXSYS GROUP-LIMITATIONS SCREEN ................................................. 47

FIGURE 4.5. FIXSYS ADDITIONS AND RETIREMENTS SCREEN .............................. 47

FIGURE 4.6. INPUT DATA FOR FIXSYS HYDRO PROJECTS ...................................... 48

FIGURE 4.7. INPUT DATA FOR FIXSYS PUMPED-STORAGE PROJECTS................. 49

FIGURE 4.8. (PAGE 1) WASP-IV FIXSYS INPUT FOR THE SAMPLE

PROBLEM. ...................................................................................................... 56

FIGUER 4.8. (PAGE 2 ) WASP-IV FIXSYS INPUT FOR THE SAMPLE

PROBLEM. ...................................................................................................... 57

FIGURE 4.9. (PAGE 1) FIXSYS PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

COVER PAGE. ................................................................................................ 64

FIGURE 4.9. (PAGE 2) FIXSYS PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

INPUT INFORMATION FOR YEAR1998..................................................... 65

FIGURE 4.9. (PAGE 3) FIXSYS PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

INPUT INFORMATION FOR YEAR 1998.................................................... 66

FIGURE 4.9. (PAGE 4) FIXSYS PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

FIXED SYSTEM DESCRIPTION FOR YEAR 1998. .................................... 67

FIGURE 4.9. (PAGE 5) FIXSYS PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

FIXED SYSTEM DESCRIPTION FOR YEAR 1998. .................................... 68

FIGURE 5.1. MAIN SCREEN VARSYS .............................................................................. 69

FIGURE 5.2. VARSYS INPUT DATA MAIN SCREEN...................................................... 70

FIGURE 5.3. VARSYS EMISSIONS SCREEN .................................................................... 72

FIGURE 5.4. VARSYS GROUP-LIMITATIONS SCREEN ................................................ 72

FIGURE 5.5. INPUT DATA FOR VARSYS HYDRO PROJECTS ..................................... 73

FIGURE 5.6. INPUT DATA FOR VARSYS PUMPED-STORAGE PROJECTS................ 74

FIGURE 5.7. WASP IV VARSYS INPUT DATA FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM ......... 80

FIGURE 5.8. (PAGE 1) VARSYS PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

COVER PAGE. ................................................................................................ 83

FIGURE 5.8. (PAGE 2) VARSYS PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

INPUT INFORMATION. ................................................................................ 84

FIGURE 5.8. (PAGE 3) VARSYS PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLE SYSTEM. ................................................... 85

FIGURE 5.8. (PAGE 4) VARSYS PRINTOUT FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLE SYSTEM. ................................................... 86

FIGURE 6.1. MAIN SCREEN CONGEN.............................................................................. 87

FIGURE 6.2. CONGEN INPUT SCREEN FOR FIXED EXPANSION MODE .................. 89

FIGURE 6.3. CONGEN INPUT SCREEN FOR OPTIMIZATION EXPANSION

MODE .............................................................................................................. 90

FIGURE 6.4. WASP-IV CONGEN INPUT DATA FOR A FIXED EXPANSION

FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. CONGEN RUN-1...................................... 94

FIGURE 6.5. (PAGE 1) CONGEN PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED EXPANSION PLAN

OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. THERMAL FUEL TYPES AND

FIXED SYSTEM DESCRIPTION FOR THE YEAR 1998 (FROM

FIXSYS FILE).................................................................................................. 98

FIGURE 6.5. (PAGE 2) CONGEN PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED EXPANSION PLAN

OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM........................................................................ 99

FIGURE 6.5. (PAGE 3) CONGEN PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED EXPANSION PLAN

OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. COVER PAGE, ECONOMIC

LOADING ORDER FOR FIXSYS/VARSYS THERMAL PLANTS,

AND RESULTS FOR THE YEAR 1998....................................................... 100

FIGURE 6.5. (PAGE 4) CONGEN PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED EXPANSION PLAN

OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. FIXED SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND

RESULTS FOR THE YEAR 2004. ............................................................... 101

FIGURE 6.5. (PAGE 5) COGEN PRINTOUT OF A FIXED EXPANSION PLAN OF

THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. LIST OF NUMBER OF

CONFIGURATIONS GENERATED BY CONGEN RUN-1. ...................... 102

FIGURE 6.6 (PAGE1) CONGEN (RUN-2) INPUT DATA FOR THE FIRST

VARIABLE EXPANSION FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

(DEMOCASE)................................................................................................ 105

FIGURE 6.6. (PAGE 2) CONGEN (RUN-2) INPUT DATA FOR THE FIRST

VARIABLE EXPANSION FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

(DEMOCASE)................................................................................................ 106

FIGURE 6.7. (PAGE1)CONGEN (RUN-3) INPUT DATA FOR THE LAST

VARIABLE EXPANSION FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

(DEMOCASE)................................................................................................ 108

FIGURE 6.7. CONGEN (RUN-3) INPUT DATA FOR THE LAST VARIABLE

EXPANSION FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM (DEMOCASE).................. 109

FIGURE 6.8. (PAGE 1) SAMPLE OF THE CONGEN PRINTOUT FOR THE FIRST

VARIABLE EXPANSION RUN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

(DEMOCASE).CONGEN RUN-2 ................................................................. 111

FIGURE 6.8. (PAGE 2) SAMPLE OF THE CONGEN PRINTOUT FOR THE FIRST

VARIABLE EXPANSION RUN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

(DEMOCASE). CONGEN RUN-2. LIST OF CONFIGURATIONS ........... 112

FIGURE 6.9. (PAGE 1) SAMPLE OF THE CONGEN PRINTOUT FOR THE LAST

VARIABLE EXPANSION RUN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

(DEMOCASE). CONGEN RUN-3. ............................................................... 113

FIGURE 6.9. (PAGE 2) SAMPLE OF THE CONGEN PRINTOUT FOR THE LAST

VARIABLE EXPANSION RUN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

(DEMOCASE). CONGEN RUN-3. ............................................................... 114

FIGURE 7.1. MAIN SCREEN MERSIM ............................................................................ 115

FIGURE 7.2. MERSIM INPUT DATA MAIN SCREEN.................................................... 116

FIGURE 7.3. CONSTANT SPINNING RESERVE REQUIREMENTS............................. 117

FIGURE 7.4. USER-SPECIFIED LOADING ORDER OF THERMAL PLANTS............. 118

FIGURE 7.5. MERSIM DATA FOR FUTURE YEARS..................................................... 118

FIGURE 7.6. SPINNING RESERVE REQUIREMENTS AND LOADING ORDER

FOR FUTURE YEARS.................................................................................. 119

FIGURE 7.7. GROUP LIMITS FOR FUTURE YEARS..................................................... 119

FIGURE 7.8. MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE YEARS.............................. 120

FIGURE 7.9. MERSIM INPUT DATA FOR A FIXED EXPANSION RUN OF THE

SAMPLE PROBLEM (DEMOCASE). MERSIM RUN-1. ........................... 129

FIGURE 7.10. MERSIM OUTPUT OPTIONS SCREEN ..................................................... 130

FIGURE 7.11. (PAGE 1) MERSIM PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED EXPANSION RUN

OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. MERSIM RUN-1. COVER PAGE,

INPUT INFORMATION FOR 1998 AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE

TABLE ([Link] FILE). ................................................................... 136

FIGURE 7.11. (PAGE 2) MERSIM PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED EXPANSION

RUN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. MERSIM RUN-1. LOADING

ORDER AND DETAILED OPERATIONAL SUMMARY FOR

PERIOD 1, HYDRO-CONDITION 1 IN 1998 (MERSIM1.

REP FILE). ..................................................................................................... 137

FIGURE 7.11. (PAGE 3) MERSIM PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED EXPANSION

RUN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. MERSIM RUN-1. LOADING

ORDER AND DETAILED OPERATIONAL SUMMARY FOR

PERIOD 1, HYDRO-CONDITION 1 IN 1998 (MERSIM1.

REP FILE). ..................................................................................................... 138

FIGURE 7.11. (PAGE 4) MERSIM PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED EXPANSION

RUN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. MERSIM RUN-1. LIST OF

CONFIGURATION SIMULATED ([Link] FILE). ....................... 139

FIGURE 7.11. (PAGE 5)MERSIM PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED EXPANSION RUN OF

THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. MERSIM RUN-1. YEARLY SUMMARIES

OF RESULTS OF SIMULATION FOR 1998 (MERSIM3.

REP FILE). ..................................................................................................... 140

FIGURE 7.11. (PAGE 6) MERSIM PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED EXPANSION RUN

OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. MERSIM RUN-1. REPORT OF

STRATEGIES GENERATED AND USED BY GROUP-

LIMITATIONS FOR YEAR 1998 ([Link] FILE). ..................... 141

FIGURE 7.12. MERSIM INPUT DATA FOR VARIABLE EXPANSION RUNS OF

THE SAMPLE PROBLEM (DEMOCASE). ................................................. 142

FIGURE 7.13. MERSIM PRINTOUT (PARTIAL) FOR THE FIRST VARIABLE

EXPANSION RUN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM (MERSIM

RUN-2).LISTING OF THE CONFIGURATIONS SIMULATED IN

THE RUN ([Link] FILE)................................................................ 144

FIGURE 7.14. MERSIM PRINTOUT (PARTIAL) FOR THE LAST VARIABLE

EXPANSION RUN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM (MERSIM

RUN-3).LISTING OF THE CONFIGURATIONS SIMULATED IN

THE RUN ([Link] FILE)................................................................ 145

FIGURE 7.15. MAIN SCREEN REMERSIM ....................................................................... 146

FIGURE 7.16. REMERSIM INPUT DATA SCREEN .......................................................... 147

FIGURE 7.17. INPUT DATA OF THE REMERSIM RUN FOR THE SAMPLE

PROBLEM (DEMOCASE)............................................................................ 148

FIGURE 7.18. REMERSIM OUTPUT OPTIONS SCREEN. ............................................... 149

FIGURE 7.19. (PAGE 1) REMERSIM PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMUM

SOLUTION OF DEMOCASE. SUMMARY OUTPUT OF THE LIST

OF CONFIGURATIONS SIMULATED IN THE RUN

([Link] FILE). ................................................................................. 151

FIGURE 7.19. (PAGE 2) REMERSIM PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMUM

SOLUTION OF DEMOCASE. OPERATIONAL SUMMARY FOR

HYDRO-CONDITION 1 FOR YEAR 1998 ([Link] FILE)........... 152

FIGURE 7.19. (PAGE 3) REMERSIM PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMUM

SOLUTION OF DEMOCASE. OPERATIONAL SUMMARY FOR

YEARLY AVERAGES FOR YEAR 1998 ([Link] FILE)............. 153

FIGURE 7.19. (PAGE 4) REMERSIM PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMUM

SOLUTION OF DEMOCASE. OUTPUT OF THE

GROUP-LIMITATION RESULTS. ([Link] FILE). ................... 154

FIGURE 7.19. (PAGE 5) REMERSIM PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMUM

SOLUTION OF DEMOCASE. OUTPUT OF THE

GROUP-LIMITATION RESULTS. ([Link] FILE). ................... 155

FIGURE 8.1. MAIN SCREEN DYNPRO............................................................................ 157

FIGURE 8.2. DYNPRO INPUT DATA MAIN SCREEN ................................................... 158

FIGURE 8.3. COST DATA FOR THERMAL PLANTS..................................................... 160

FIGURE 8.4. COST DATA FOR HYDRO/P-S PLANTS................................................... 160

FIGURE 8.5. DYNPRO DATA FOR FUTURE YEARS. ................................................... 161

FIGURE 8.6. DYNPRO INPUT DATA FOR A FIXED EXPANSION

PLAN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM (DEMOCASE).

DYNPRO RUN-1 ........................................................................................... 169

FIGURE 8.7. (PAGE 1) DYNPRO PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED

EXPANSION PLAN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

DYNPRO RUN-1. COVER PAGE AND INPUT

INFORMATION ([Link] FILE). ................................................... 172

FIGURE 8.7. (PAGE 2) DYNPRO PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED

EXPANSION PLAN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.........................................

DYNPRO RUN-1. VALUES OF OBJECTIVE FUNCTION

AND OPTIMAL PATH ([Link] FILE). ........................................ 173

FIGURE 8.7. (PAGE 3) DYNPRO PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED

EXPANSION PLAN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

DYNPRO RUN-1. RESULTS OF ECONOMIC

CALCULATIONS ([Link] FILE).................................................. 174

FIGURE 8.7. (PAGE 4) DYNPRO PRINTOUT FOR A FIXED

EXPANSION PLAN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM.

DYNPRO RUN-1. LIST OF STATES CONSIDERED

IN THE RUN ([Link] FILE).......................................................... 175

FIGURE 8.8. DYNPRO INPUT DATA FOR VARIABLE EXPANSION

PLANS OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM. ....................................................... 176

FIGURE 8.9. (PAGE 1) DYNPRO PRINTOUT FOR THE FIRST

VARIABLE EXPANSION PLAN OF THE SAMPLE

PROBLEM (DEMOCASE). DYNPRO RUN-2.

INPUT DATA FOR THE RUN ([Link] FILE) ............................. 180

FIGURE 8.9. (PAGE 2) DYNPRO PRINTOUT FOR THE FIRST

VARIABLE EXPANSION PLAN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM

(DEMOCASE). DYNPRO RUN-2. OBJECTIVE FUNCTION

VALUES AND OPTIMIZATION PATH ([Link] FILE).............. 181

FIGURE 8.9. (PAGE 3) DYNPRO PRINTOUT FOR THE FIRST VARIABLE

EXPANSION PLAN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM (DEMOCASE).

DYNPRO RUN-2. “BEST” SOLUTION FOR THE RUN

([Link] FILE). ................................................................................ 182

FIGURE 8.10. DYNPRO PRINTOUT FOR THE LAST VARIABLE EXPANSION

PLAN OF THE SAMPLE PROBLEM (DEMOCASE). DYNPRO

RUN-3. OPTIMAL SOLUTION ([Link] FILE)............................ 183

FIGURE 9.1. MAIN SCREEN REPROBAT. ...................................................................... 185

FIGURE 9.2. REPROBAT INPUT DATA MAIN SCREEN. ............................................. 186

FIGURE 9.3. DETAILS OF COVER PAGE OF REPORT. ................................................ 189

FIGURE 9.4. COST DATA FOR FIXSYS PLANTS. ......................................................... 190

FIGURE 9.5. COST DATA FOR VARSYS PLANTS. ....................................................... 190

FIGURE 9.6. INPUT DATA FOR REPROBAT RUN OF THE OPTIMAL

SOLUTION FOR THE SAMPLE PROBLEM (DEMOCASE). ................... 198

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE(CONT)..................................................................................... 204
FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 205

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 206

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 207

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 208

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 209

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 210

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 211

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 212

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 213

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 214

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 215

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 216

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 217

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 218

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 219

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 220

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 221

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 222

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 223

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 224

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 225

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 226

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 227

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 228

FIGURE 9.7 REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 229

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 230

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 231

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 232

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 233

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 234

FIGURE 9.7 REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 235

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 236

FIGURE 9.7. REPROBAT PRINTOUT FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF

DEMOCASE (CONT.)................................................................................... 237

FIGURE 9.8. PLANT CAPITAL INVESTMENT EXPENDITURE

AGAINST TIME (“S” CURVE SHAPE) .................................................... .239

FIGURE 10.1. USER-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN RUNNING THE

WASP-IV CODE FOR A PREDETERMINED EXPANSION

PLAN (ADAPTED FROM ORNL 73-7759 RI)............................................ 245

FIGURE 10.2. SCREENING CURVES: ANNUAL PRODUCTION COSTS

VERSUS PLANT CAPACITY FACTOR OF EXPANSION

CANDIDATES FOR THE SAMPLE CASE. ................................................ 250

FIGURE 10.3. USER-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN RUNNING THE

WASP-IV CODE FOR VARIABLE EXPANSION PLANS

(ADAPTED FROM ORNL 73-7759 RI). ...................................................... 253

FIGURE 10.4. INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSAGES REPORTED BY

DYNPRO........................................................................................................ 257
FIGURE 10.5. EVOLUTION OF THE OBJECTIVE FUNCTION VALUE

DURING THE OPTIMIZATION PROCESS FOR THE

AMPLE PROBLEM (DEMOCASE). ............................................................ 258

FIGURE [Link] OF THE WASP-IV OUTPUT. .................................................. 260

 TABLE

TABLE 1.1 PRINCIPAL CAPABILITIES OF WASP-IV PROGRAM. ............................ 12

TABLE 2.1. COMMON DATA FOR THE ENTIRE CASE................................................ 25

TABLE 3.1. (PAGE 1) INPUT DATA FOR LOADSY MODULE OF WASP-IV............. 31

TABLE 3.1. (PAGE 2) INPUT DATA FOR LOADSY MODULE OF WASP-IV............. 32

TABLE 4.1. (PAGE 1) INPUT DATA FOR FIXSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV. .............. 50

TABLE 4.1. (PAGE 2) INPUT DATA FOR FIXSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV. .............. 51

TABLE 4.1. (PAGE 3) INPUT DATA FOR FIXSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV. .............. 52

TABLE 4.1. (PAGE 4) INPUT DATA FOR FIXSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV. .............. 53

TABLE 4.1. (PAGE 5) INPUT DATA FOR FIXSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV. .............. 54

TABLE 5.1. (PAGE 1) INPUT DATA FOR VARSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV. ............ 75

TABLE 5.1. (PAGE 2) INPUT DATA FOR VARSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV. ............ 76

TABLE 5.1. (PAGE 3) INPUT DATA FOR VARSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV. ............ 77

TABLE 5.1. (PAGE 4) INPUT DATA FOR VARSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV. ............ 78

TABLE 6.1. INPUT DATA FOR CONGEN MODULE OF WASP-IV. ............................ 91

TABLE 7.1. (PAGE 1) INPUT DATA FOR MERSIM MODULE OF WASP-IV. .......... 121

TABLE 7.1. (PAGE 2) INPUT DATA FOR MERSIM MODULE OF WASP-IV. .......... 122

TABLE 7.1. (PAGE 3) INPUT DATA FOR MERSIM MODULE OF WASP-IV. .......... 123

TABLE 7.1. (PAGE 4) INPUT DATA FOR MERSIM MODULE OF WASP-IV. .......... 124

TABLE 8.1. (PAGE 1) INPUT DATA FOR DYNPRO MODULE OF WASP-IV. ......... 162

TABLE 8.1. (PAGE 2) INPUT DATA FOR DYNPRO MODULE OF WASP-IV. ......... 163

TABLE 8.1. (PAGE 3) INPUT DATA FOR DYNPRO MODULE OF WASP-IV. ......... 164

TABLE 8.1. (PAGE 4) INPUT DATA FOR DYNPRO MODULE OF WASP-IV. ......... 165

TABLE 8.1. (PAGE 5) INPUT DATA FOR DYNPRO MODULE OF WASP-IV. ......... 166

TABLE 8.2. VARIATION OF OBJECTIVE FUNCTION FOR THE VARIOUS

DYNPRO RUNS OF DEMOCASE. .............................................................. 179

TABLE 9.1. (PAGE 1) INPUT DATA FOR REPROBAT MODULE OF

WASP-IV....................................................................................................... 192

TABLE 9.1. (PAGE 2) INPUT DATA FOR REPROBAT MODULE OF

WASP-IV....................................................................................................... 193

TABLE 9.1. (PAGE 3) INPUT DATA FOR REPROBAT MODULE OF

WASP-IV....................................................................................................... 194

TABLE 9.1. (PAGE 4) INPUT DATA FOR REPROBAT MODULE OF

WASP-IV....................................................................................................... 195

TABLE 9.2. INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION (IDC) IN PERCENT OF

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (INPUT OF DYNPRO). ....................... 241

TABLE 9.3. INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION (IDC) IN PERCENT OF

PURE CONSTRUCTION COST................................................................... 242

TABLE 10.1. MOST IMPORTANT DATA FOR WASP-IV COMPUTER RUNS............ 244

TABLE 10.2. INPUT DATA VALIDATION AND DEBUGGING: RUNNING A

PREDETERMINED EXPANSION PLAN.................................................... 246

TABLE 10.3. EXAMPLE OF CALCULATIONS OF TOTAL ANNUAL

PRODUCTION COSTS USING DATA FOR DEMOCASE........................ 249

TABLE 10.4. EXECUTION OF A SERIES OF PREDETERMINED EXPANSION

PLANS............................................................................................................ 252

TABLE 10.5. SEARCH FOR OPTIMAL SOLUTION; RUNNING VARIABLE

EXPANSION PLANS.................................................................................... 254

TABLE 10.6. RANGE OF TUNNEL WIDTHS AND POSSIBLE NUMBER OF

CONFIGURATIONS IN THE YEAR AS A FUNCTION OF THE

NUMBER OF COMPETING CANDIDATE PLANTS. ............................... 254

TABLE 13.1. USER INTERFACE WARNING MESSAGES FOR COMMON

CASE DATA OF WASP-IV. ......................................................................... 285

TABLE 13.2. USER INTERFACE WARNING MESSAGES FOR

LOADSY MODULE OF WASP-IV. ............................................................. 286

TABLE 13.3. MESSAGES IN THE LOADSY MODULE OF WASP-IV. ......................... 287

TABLE 13.6. USER INTERFACE WARNING MESSAGES FOR VARSYS

MODULE OF WASP-IV. .............................................................................. 288

TABLE 13.7.(PAGE 1) MESSAGES IN THE VARSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV. .......... 289

TABLE 13.7. (PAGE 2) MESSAGES IN THE VARSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV.......... 290

TABLE 13.7. (PAGE 3) MESSAGES IN THE VARSYS MODULE OF WASP-IV.......... 291

TABLE 13.8. (PAGE 1) MESSAGES IN THE CONGEN MODULE OF WASP-IV......... 294

TABLE 13.8. (PAGE 2) MESSAGES IN THE CONGEN MODULE OF WASP-IV......... 295

TABLE 13.8. (PAGE 3) MESSAGES IN THE CONGEN MODULE OF WASP-IV......... 296

TABLE 13.8. (PAGE 4) MESSAGES IN THE CONGEN MODULE OF WASP-IV......... 297

TABLE 13.9. USER INTERFACE WARNING MESSAGES FOR

MERSIM MODULE OF WASP-IV............................................................... 298

TABLE 13.10 (PAGE 1) MESSAGES IN THE MERSIM MODULE OF WASP-IV.......... 300

TABLE 13.10 (PAGE 2) MESSAGES IN THE MERSIM MODULE OF WASP-IV.......... 301

TABLE 13.10 (PAGE 3) MESSAGES IN THE MERSIM MODULE OF WASP-IV.......... 302

TABLE 13.10 (PAGE 4) MESSAGES IN THE MERSIM MODULE OF WASP-IV.......... 303

TABLE 13.11 (PAGE 1) MESSAGES IN THE DYNPRO MODULE OF WASP-IV. ........ 305

TABLE 13.11 (PAGE 2).MESSAGES IN THE DYNPRO MODULE OF WASP-IV. ........ 306

TABLE 13.12 USER INTERFACE WARNING MESSAGES FOR REPROBAT

MODULE OF WASP-IV. .............................................................................. 307

TABLE 13.13 (PAGE 1) ESSAGES IN THE REPROBAT MODULE OF

WASP-IV........................................................................................................ 308

TABLE 13.13 (PAGE 2).MESSAGES IN THE REPROBAT MODULE OF

WASP-IV........................................................................................................ 309
TABLE 13.13 (PAGE 3) MESSAGES IN THE REPROBAT MODULE OF

WASP-IV........................................................................................................ 310
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background information

The Wien Automatic System Planning Package (WASP) was originally developed by the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) of the
United States of America to meet the needs of the IAEA's Market Survey for Nuclear Power
in Developing Countries conducted by the IAEA in 1972-1973 [1, 2].

Based on the experience gained in using the program, many improvements were made to the
computer code by IAEA Staff, which led in 1976 to the WASP-II version. Later, the needs of
the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) to study the
interconnection of the electrical grids of the six Central American countries, where a large
potential of hydroelectric resources is available, led to a joint ECLA/IAEA effort from 1978
to 1980 to develop the WASP-III version [3].

The WASP-III version has been distributed to several Member States for use in electric
expansion analysis. In addition, other computer models have been added to the IAEA's
catalogue of planning methodologies to complement the WASP analysis. Firstly, in 1981, the
Model for Analysis of Energy Demand (MAED) was developed in order to allow the
determination of electricity demand, consistently with the overall requirements for final
energy, and thus, to provide a more adequate forecast of electricity needs to be considered in
the WASP study [4]. Later in 1992, the VALORAGUA model for determination of the
optimal operating strategy for mixed hydro-thermal power systems was completed as a means
of improving the determination of the characteristics of hydroelectric power stations to be fed
into WASP [5]. Microcomputers (PC) versions of WASP-III and MAED have also been
developed as stand alone programs [6, 7] and as part of an integrated package for energy and
electricity planning called ENPEP (Energy and Power Evaluation Program) [8]. A PC version
of the VALORAGUA model has also been completed in 1992 [9]. More recently, following
the recommendations of an IAEA Advisory Group on WASP Experience in Member States
[10, 11, 12] convened in 1990 and 1991, additional enhancements were incorporated in the
WASP model, further increasing its capabilities for modelling additional aspects of electricity
generation system, handling larger number of fuel types, adding flexibility to capital cost
distribution during construction period and for generating additional information. This version
has been called WASP-III Plus [13], and has been released to interested Member States.

With all these improvements, the WASP model has been enhanced to facilitate the work by
electricity planners and is currently accepted as a powerful tool for electric system expansion
planning. Nevertheless, experienced users of the program have indicated the need to introduce
more enhancements within the WASP model in order to cope with the problems constantly
faced by the planners owing to the increasing complexity of the system particularly with
emerging environmental and other issues.

The Inter-Agency International Symposium on Electricity and the Environment, Helsinki,

1991 [14], also recommended incorporation of environmental and health impacts of electricity
sector into comparative assessment of various electricity generation options for making
realistic evaluation of different strategies for future development of the sector.

In order to meet the needs of electricity planners and following the recommendations of
Helsinki symposium, development of a new version of WASP was initiated in 1992 with
cooperation of some Member States (Hungary and Greece). Advisory group and Consultancy

1
meetings on the subject convened during 1992-1996 focused on identifying necessary
enhancements to the model and suggesting appropriate methodological approaches to address
new issues. The new version of the model with a number of new features has been completed
and named WASP-IV [15].

Like its predecessor, WASP-IV is designed to find the economically optimal generation
expansion policy for an electric utility system within user-specified constraints. It utilizes
probabilistic estimation of system -production costs, -unserved energy cost, and -reliability,
linear programming technique for determining optimal dispatch policy satisfying exogenous
constraints on environmental emissions, fuel availability and electricity generation by some
plants, and the dynamic method of optimization for comparing the costs of alternative system
expansion policies.

The modular structure of WASP-IV permits the user to monitor intermediate results, avoiding
waste of large amounts of computer time due to input data errors. The information from one
module is passed to the subsequent modules through binary files. Each module also produces
its own printable output, which can be viewed on display or printed by the user to detect input
data errors.

The new features and enhancements incorporated in WASP-IV are:

• Option for introducing constraints on environmental emissions, fuel usage and energy
generation: WASP-IV allows user to introduce limits on environmental emissions (up
to 2 types of pollutants) by a set of plants; on fuel usage by a set of plants; and/or on
energy generation by a set of plants. These constraints are handled by multiple group-
limitation technique wherein a group of plants may take role in a constraint and some
plants can be involved in more than one type of constraints. Linear programming
method is employed to determine an optimal policy for dispatch of plants satisfying
these constraints. This option can be extremely useful for real life planning in view of
increasing importance of environmental concerns as well as due to the fact that in
many cases availability of some fuels for power generation may be limited or energy
generation from some plants may be limited.

• Representation of pumped-storage (P-S) plants: Such an option was available in

WASP-II but was taken out in WASP-III to accommodate more flexibility for hydro
plants representation. However, in view of increasing importance of pumped-storage
plants and other energy storage technologies under development (e.g. large batteries or
compressed air storage systems) this option has been included in WASP-IV.

• Fixed maintenance schedule: Due to some practical considerations the user may like
to specify a certain schedule for annual maintenance of some of the plants in the
system. WASP-IV allows for this option.

• Environmental emission calculations: WASP-IV calculates environmental emissions

from electricity generation, for each year and for each period within a year, based on
estimates of electricity generated by each plant and the user specified characteristics of
fuels used.

• Expanded dimensions for handling up to 90 types of plants and larger number of

configurations (up to 500 per year and up to 5000 for the study period).

2
The purpose of this manual is to show the WASP-IV user how to undertake the following
tasks:

• preparation of input data needed to run the WASP modules,

• execution of the modules,

• review of the WASP outputs, and

• repetition of this process until an expansion plan is identified, which is optimal within
the constraints imposed by the user.

These aspects will be illustrated using an example (DEMOCASE). In general, the information
presented throughout the manual illustrates how this study was conducted on the IAEA's
computer facilities. In some cases, particularly for some of the input data and computer
printouts, the information presented in this manual has been compressed to facilitate their
description and to reduce the size of the manual. It must be emphasized that the sample
problem has been selected to demonstrate the input and output capabilities of the code and it
is not meant to represent a typical system or a typical power planning study.

1.2. Summary description of the WASP-IV computer code

The WASP-IV code permits finding the optimal expansion plan for a power generating
system over a period of up to thirty years, within constraints given by the planner. The
optimum is evaluated in terms of minimum discounted total costs. A simplified description of
the model follows. For matters of convenience, the symbols used in this description are not
the same as in the various WASP modules and the different expressions presented have been
simplified.

Each possible sequence of power units added to the system (expansion plan or expansion
policy) meeting the constraints is evaluated by means of a cost function (the objective
function), which is composed of:

• Depreciable capital investment costs: equipment, site installation costs (I);

• Salvage value of investment costs (S);

• Non-depreciable capital investment costs: fuel inventory, initial stock of spare parts
etc. (L);

• Fuel costs (F);

• Non-fuel operation and maintenance costs (M);

• Cost of the energy-not-served (O).

The cost function to be evaluated by WASP can be represented by the following expression:

T
Bj = ∑ [I
t =1
j,t - S j,t + L j,t + F j,t + M j,t + O j,t ] (1.1)

3
where:

Bj is the objective function attached to the expansion plan j,

t is the time in years (1, 2, ... , T),

T is the length of the study period (total number of years), and

the bar over the symbols has the meaning of discounted values to a reference date at a given
discount rate i.

The optimal expansion plan is defined by:

Minimum Bj among all j (1.2)

The WASP analysis requires as a starting point the determination of alternative

expansion policies for the power system. If [Kt] is a vector containing the number of all
generating units which are in operation in year t for a given expansion plan, then [Kt] must
satisfy the following relationship:

[ K t ] = [ K t -1 ] + [ A t ] − [ R t ] + [ U t ] (1.3)

where:

[At] = vector of committed additions of units in year t,

[Rt] = vector of committed retirements of units in year t,

[Ut] = vector of candidate generating units added to the system in year t,

[At] and [Rt] are given data, and [Ut] is the unknown variable to be determined; the latter is
called the system configuration vector or, simply, the system configuration.

Defining the critical period (p) as the period of the year for which the difference between the
corresponding available generating capacity and the peak demand has the smallest value, and
if P(Kt,p) is the installed capacity of the system in the critical period of year t, the following
constraints should be met by every acceptable configuration:

(1 + at ) Dtp ≥ P ( K tp ) ≥ (1 + bt ) Dtp (1.4)

which simply states that the installed capacity in the critical period must lie between the given
maximum and minimum reserve margins, at and bt respectively, above the peak demand Dt,p in
the critical period of the year.

The reliability of the system configuration is evaluated by WASP in terms of the Loss-of-Load
Probability (LOLP) index. This index is calculated in WASP for each period of the year and
each hydro-condition defined. The LOLP of each period is determined as the sum of LOLPs for
each hydro-condition (in the same period) weighted by the hydro-condition probabilities, and
the average annual LOLP as the sum of the period LOLPs divided by the number of periods.

If LOLP(Kt,a) and LOLP(Kt,i) are the annual and the period's LOLPs, respectively, every
acceptable configuration must respect the following constraints:

4
 LOLP(Kt,a) ≤ Ct,a (1.5)

LOLP(Kt,i) ≤ Ct,p (for all periods) (1.6)

where Ct,a and Ct,p are limiting values given as input data by the user.

If an expansion plan contains system configurations for which the annual energy demand Et is
greater than the expected annual generation Gt of all units existing in the configuration for the
corresponding year t, the total costs of the plan should be penalized by the resulting cost of
the energy-not-served. Obviously, this cost is a function of the amount of energy-not-served
Nt, which can be calculated as:

Nt = Et - Gt (1.7)

The user may also impose tunnel constraints on the configuration vector [Ut] so that every
acceptable configuration must respect:

[ U Ot ] ≤ [ U t ] ≤ [ U Ot ] + [ ΔU t ] (1.8)

where [ U Ot ] is the smallest value permitted to the configuration vector [Ut], and [ ΔU t ] is the
tunnel constraint or tunnel width.

The generation by each plant for each period of the year is estimated based on an optimal
dispatch policy which, in turn, is dependent on availability of the plants/units, maintenance
requirements, spinning reserves requirements and any exogenous constraints imposed by the
user on environmental emissions, fuel availability and/or generation by some plants. The user
may impose constraints on environmental emissions, fuel usage and energy generation for a
set of power plants through the new feature introduced in this version, i.e. through multiple
group-limitations. Such constraints take the form:

∑ COEF ij ⋅ Gi ≤ LIMITj for j = 1,...,M (1.9)

i ∈ Ij

where Gi is generation by plant i, COEFij is per unit emission (for emission constraints) or per
unit fuel usage (for fuel availability constraint) etc. by plant i in group-limitation j, LIMITj is
the user specified value for the limit and Ij is the set of plants taking role in group-limitation j.
These special constraints are handled by a new algorithm incorporated in WASP-IV, which
determines dispatch of plants in such a way that these constraints are respected with minimum
production cost. The details of this feature are explained in Chapter 12.

The problem as stated here corresponds to finding the values of the vector [Ut] over the period
of study which satisfy expressions (1.1) to (1.9). This will be the "best" system expansion
plan within the constraints given by the user. The WASP code finds this best expansion plan
using the dynamic programming technique. In doing so, the program also detects if the
solution has hit the tunnel boundaries of expression (1.8) and gives a message in its output.
Consequently, the user should proceed to new iterations, relaxing the constraints as indicated
in the WASP output, until a solution free of messages is found. This will be the "optimum
expansion plan" for the system.

5
1.2.1. Calculation of costs

The calculation of the various cost components in expression (1.1) is done in WASP with
certain models in order to account for:

(a) Characteristics of the load forecast;

(b) Characteristics of thermal and nuclear plants;

(c) Characteristics of hydroelectric and pumped-storage plants;

(d) Stochastic nature of hydrology (hydrological conditions); and

(e) Cost of the energy-not-served.

In the above list and throughout this manual, the word plant is used when referring to a
combination of one or more units (for thermal) or to one or more projects (for hydro or
pumped-storage).

The load is modelled by the peak load and the energy demand for each period (up to 12) for
all years (up to 30), and their corresponding inverted load duration curves. The latter
represents the probability that the load will equal or exceed a value taken at random in the
period (for computational convenience, the inverted load duration curves are expanded in
Fourier Series by the computer program).

The models for thermal and nuclear power plants are described, each of them, by:

- Maximum and minimum capacities;

- Heat rate at minimum capacity and average incremental heat rate between minimum and
maximum capacity;

- Variable fuel cost;

- Fixed component and variable component of (non-fuel) operating and maintenance

costs;

- Maintenance requirements (scheduled outages);

- Failure probability (equivalent forced outage rate);

- Spinning reserve capability;

- Emission rates and specific energy use;

- Depreciable capital investment cost (for expansion candidates);

- Non-depreciable capital investment cost (for expansion candidates);

- Construction time (for expansion candidates); and

- Plant life (for expansion candidates).

6
The models for hydroelectric projects are for run-of-river, daily peaking, weekly peaking and
seasonal storage regulating cycle. They are defined by identifying for each project:

- Installed capacity;

- Fixed operating and maintenance (O & M) costs;

- Energy storage capacity of the reservoir;

- Inflow energy available per period;

- Minimum generation in base per period to supply downstream water requirements;

- Available capacity per period;

- Depreciable capital investment cost (for projects considered as expansion candidates);

- Construction time (for projects considered as expansion candidates); and

- Plant life (for projects considered as expansion candidates).

The hydroelectric plants are assumed in the model to be 100% reliable. Therefore, the
available capacity in the period should be calculated taking into account the reliability of
these plants. As such, there is no need to specify their equivalent forced outage rates as input
for the WASP-IV program. In addition, no associated cost for the water is considered. The
stochastic nature of the hydrology is treated by means of hydrological conditions (up to 5),
each one defined by its probability of occurrence and the corresponding available capacity
and energy of each hydro project in the given hydro-condition.

The pumped-storage plants are modelled by specifying:

- Installed capacity;

- Cycle efficiency;

- Pumping capacity (for each period);

- Generation capacity (for each period);

- Maximum feasible energy generation (for each period).

- Depreciable capital investment cost (for projects considered as expansion candidates);

- Construction time (for projects considered as expansion candidates); and

- Plant life (for projects considered as expansion candidates).

The cost of energy-not-served reflects the expected damages to the economy of the country or
region under study when a certain amount of electric energy is not supplied. This cost is
modelled in WASP through a quadratic function relating the incremental cost of the energy-
not-served to the amount of energy-not-served. In theory at least, the cost of the energy-not-
served would permit automatic definition of the adequate amount of reserve capacity in the
power system.

7
In order to calculate the present-worth values of the cost components of Eq. (1.1), it is
assumed that the full capital investment for a plant added by the expansion plan is made at the
beginning of the year in which it goes into service and that its salvage value is the credit at the
horizon for the remaining economic life of the plant. Non-depreciable cost items (fuel
inventory, land, initial stock of spare parts etc.) are treated as investment costs, but full credit
is taken at the horizon (i.e. these costs are not depreciated). All the other costs (fuel, O&M,
and energy-not-served) are assumed to occur in the middle of the corresponding year. These
assumptions are illustrated in Figure 1.1.

According to the above, the cost components of Bj in expression (1.1) are calculated as
follows:

(a) Depreciable capital investment cost and salvage values:

I j ,t = (1 + i ) −t × ∑ [UI k × MWk ]
'

(1.10)

× ∑ ⎡⎣δ k ,t × UI k × MWk ⎤⎦
−T '
S j ,t = (1 + i ) (1.11)

where:

Σ = sum calculated considering all (thermal, hydro or pumped-storage) units k

added in year t by expansion plan j,

UIk = capital investment cost of unit k, expressed in monetary units per MW,

MWk = capacity of unit k in MW,

δk,t = salvage value factor at the horizon for unit k,

i = discount rate,

t' = t + t0 - 1

T' = T + t0 and t, t0, and T follow the same definitions given in Figure 1.1.

8
 Bj

OPERATING 3
OPERATING 1

OPERATING T
OPERATING 2

CAPITAL T
CAPITAL 3
CAPITAL 1

CAPITAL2
Reference t =1 t =2 t =3 t =T
date for

SALVAGE
discounting

Years of study

t T
o

Notes:

Bj = objective function (total cost) of the expansion plan

CAPITAL = sum of the investment costs of all units added in the first year of study
1
OPERATING1 = sum of all system operating costs (fuel, O&M, and energy not served) in the first year of study

SALVAGE = sum of the salvage values at horizon of all plants added during the study period
to = number of years between the reference date for discounting and the first year of study
T = length (in number of years) of the study period

Figure 1.1. Schematic diagram of cash flows for an expansion programme.

(b) Non-depreciable capital investment cost:

L j ,t = ⎡(1 + i ) − (1 + i ) ⎤ × [UFIC × MW ]
⎥⎦ ∑
−t' −T '
(1.12)
⎢⎣ kt kt

where the indicated sum (Σ) is calculated over all thermal units kt added to the system in year
t, and UFICkt is the unitary non-depreciable capital investment cost of unit kt (in monetary
units per MW).

(c) Fuel costs:

NHYD
− t ' − 0.5
F j ,t = (1+ i ) × ∑ ⎡⎣α
h =1
h × Ψ j ,t ,h ⎤⎦ (1.13)

9
where αh is the probability of hydro-condition h, Ψj,t,h the total fuel costs (sum of fuel costs
for thermal and nuclear units) for each hydro-condition, and NHYD represents the total
number of hydro-conditions defined.

The energy generated by each unit in the system is calculated by probabilistic simulation. In
this approach the forced outages of thermal units are convolved with the inverted load
duration curve and, consequently, the effect of unexpected outages of thermal units upon
other units is accounted for in a probabilistic way. The net effect is an increase of peaking
units generation in order to make up the reduction of base units generation due to scheduled
outages for maintenance and unit failures. Thus, increasing the expected generating costs of
the system. Obviously the fuel cost of a particular block of energy generated by a unit is
calculated as the amount of generation times the unit fuel cost times its heat rate.

If special constraints on a set(s) of plants are imposed for maximum amount of emissions, fuel
usage and/or energy generation, linear programming technique is used for determining an
optimal dispatch strategy for the plants satisfying these constraints, as explained in detail in
Chapter 12.

(d) Operation and maintenance costs:

− t ' − 0.5
M j ,t = (l + i) × ∑ ⎡⎣UFO & M l × MWl + UVO & M l × Gl ,t ⎤⎦ (1.14)

where:

Σ = sum over all units (l) existing in the system in year t,

UFO&M l = unitary fixed O&M cost of unit l, expressed in monetary units per MW-year,

UVO&M l = unitary variable O&M cost of unit l, expressed in monetary units per kWh,

G l, t = expected generation of unit l in year t, in kWh, which is calculated as the sum of

the energy generated by the unit in each hydro-condition weighted by the probabilities of the
hydro-conditions.

(e) Energy-not-served costs:

− t ' − 0.5 NHYD ⎡ b ⎛ N t ,h ⎞ c ⎛ N t ,h ⎞ ⎤

2

O j ,t = (l + i) × ∑ ⎢a + × ⎜ ⎟ + ×⎜ ⎟ ⎥ × Nt ,h × α h (1.15)
⎢⎣ 2 ⎝ EAt ⎠ 3 ⎝ EAt ⎠ ⎥
h =1
⎦
where: a, b, and c are constants ($/kWh) given as input data, and:

Nt,h = amount of energy-not-served (kWh) for the hydro-condition h in year t,

EAt = energy demand (kWh) of the system in year t.

As stated in the introduction of Section 1.2, the cost components of the objective function (Bj)
are presented in expressions (1.10) to (1.15) in a simplified form. In fact, the above
expressions have been derived considering each expansion candidate as one single unit (P-S,
hydro, thermal or nuclear) whereas in WASP-IV the expansion candidates are defined as

10
plants and the number of units (or projects) from each plant to be added in each year is to be
determined by the WASP study.

Besides, WASP-IV:

- combines depreciable and non-depreciable capital investment cost and associated

salvage value;

- aggregates operating costs by types of (fuel) plant;

- separates all expenditures (capital or operating) into local and foreign components;

- permits escalating all costs over the study period;

- has provisions to apply different discount rates and escalation ratios for each year, for
the local and foreign cost components, and to change the constants (a, b, and c) for
evaluating the energy-not-served cost from year to year.

Finally, the units of the different variables in Eqs. (1.10) to (1.15) and the variable names used
in the above discussion do not correspond to the units and terminology used in the WASP
modules.

1.2.2. Dimensions of the WASP-IV computer program

Table 1.1 provides a listing of the more important capabilities of the WASP-IV code. Other
characteristics and limitations of second order of importance are explained in the description
of the various modules of the program along the chapters of this manual. Section 8.4 (for
DYNPRO) and Section 9.4 (for REPROBAT) describe special restrictions applicable to these
modules.

1.3. Description of WASP-IV modules

Figure 1.2 shows a simplified flow chart of WASP-IV illustrating the flow of information
from the various WASP modules and associated data files. The numbering of the first two
modules is symbolic, since they can be executed independently of each other in any order. For
convenience, however, these two modules have been given numbers in this manual. Module 3
must be executed after Module 2. Modules 4, 5 and 6 must be executed in order, after
execution of Modules 1, 2 and 3. There is also a seventh module, REPROBAT, which
produces a summary report of the first six modules, in addition to its own results.

Module 1, LOADSY (Load System Description), processes information describing

period peak loads and load duration curves for the power system over the study period.

Module 2, FIXSYS (Fixed System Description), processes information describing the

existing generation system and any predetermined additions or retirements, as well as
information on any constraints imposed by the user on environmental emissions, fuel
availability or electricity generation by some plants.

Module 3, VARSYS (Variable System Description), processes information describing

the various generating plants which are to be considered as candidates for expanding the
generation system.

11
Table 1.1 Principal capabilities of WASP-IV program
Parameters Maximum
allowable

Planning studies: 10

Cases (for each planning study): 99

Years of study period: 30

Periods per year: 12

Load duration curves (one for each period and for each year): 360

Cosine terms in the Fourier representation of the inverted load duration curve 100
of each period:

Hydrological conditions (hydrological years): 5

Types of plants grouped by "fuel" types of which: 12

Fixed system:

Variable system (types of plants, candidates for system expansion):

Environmental pollutants: 2

Group-limitations: 5

System configuration per year: 500

12
 INPUT INPUT INPUT
DATA DATA DATA

MODULE 1 MODULE 2 MODULE 3

LOADSY FIXSYS VARSYS

LOADDUCU FIXSYSGL FIXPLANT VARSYSGL VARPLANT

INPUT
DATA

MODULE 4 (***)
CONGEN

INPUT EXPANALT INPUT

DATA DATA
(**)

MODULE 5 MODULE 6
SIMULNEW
MERSIM DYNPRO

(*) (*) (*)

(*)
REPROEMI EXPANREP OSDYNDAT

INPUT
REPROGL REMERSIM DATA

MODULE 7
REPROBAT

REPORT
FINAL SOLUTION

(*) FOR RESIMULATION OF BEST SOLUTION

ONLY
(**) OMMIT FOR RESIMULATION OF BEST
SOLUTION
(***) ITERATION PATTERN IF BEST SOLUTION STILL
CONSTRAINED

Figure 1.2. Simplified flow chart of the WASP-IV computer code.

13
 Module 4, CONGEN (Configuration Generator), calculates all possible year-to-year
combinations of expansion candidate additions which satisfy certain input constraints and
which in combination with the fixed system can satisfy the loads. CONGEN also calculates
the basic economic loading order of the combined list of FIXSYS and VARSYS plants.

Module 5, MERSIM (Merge and Simulate), considers all configurations put forward
by CONGEN and uses probabilistic simulation of system operation to calculate the associated
production costs, energy-not-served and system reliability for each configuration. In the
process, any limitations imposed on some groups of plants for their environmental emissions,
fuel availability or electricity generation are also taken into account. The dispatching of plants
is determined in such a way that plant availability, maintenance requirement, spinning reserve
requirements and all the group-limitations are satisfied with minimum cost. MERSIM can
also be used to simulate the system operation for the best solution provided by the current
DYNPRO run and in this mode of operation is called REMERSIM.

Module 6, DYNPRO (Dynamic Programming Optimization), determines the optimum

expansion plan based on previously derived operating costs along with input information on
capital costs, energy-not-served cost and economic parameters and reliability criteria.

Module 7, REPROBAT (Report Writer of WASP in a Batched Environment), writes a

report summarizing the total or partial results for the optimum or near optimum power system
expansion plan and for fixed expansion schedules.

14
 CHAPTER 2. EXECUTION OF WASP-IV

This chapter describes the system requirements and the steps required to install WASP-IV
code on a PC, the automatic procedures to create/delete planning studies, to
create/delete/backup/restore cases, the fixed and variable modes of program use. The chapter
gives also general information on computer code file system and input data, on common data
used by all modules and on the sequence of execution of WASP-IV module programs for
conducting case studies for electric system expansion planning for a country. The computer
code of WASP-IV operates under MS Windows environment.

2.1. Installation of wasp-iv computer code

WASP-IV computer code is distributed by the IAEA on a CD containing the setup

(installation/uninstallation) program, a demonstration case study and the user’s manual. All
these components could be installed in any computer folder. Before installing the WASP-IV
code it is recommended to create first the Wasp4 folder on the selected disk drive.

The user has to execute the [Link] program from the distribution CD and to follow
the installation steps, as follows:

• accept the terms and conditions of the license agreement;

• provide information on the user’s name and company;

• read the information on system requirements for program installation;

• choose the installation folder;

• choose the shortcut folder;

• follow the other instructions of the installation program.

At the end of the WASP-IV installation process, the WASP-IV icon is created on the desktop
and a main directory with an appropriate name (e.g. Wasp4) is created on the selected target
drive (e.g. C:). Within this directory, several subdirectories are automatically created, namely:

System subdirectory, where all the executable programs of the WASP-IV code are stored;

Study_01 subdirectory, where the demonstration case study (DEMOCASE) provided by the
IAEA is also stored.

The user is advised to create another directory for the user’s manual files.

The installation program will try to automatically locate and copy the WordPad to selected
WASP-IV directory. In case an alternative program should be used it is strongly
recommended to copy that tool to Wasp4\System folder and rename it to [Link].

The WASP-IV computer program is now ready for use. When double-clicking the shortcut
WASP-IV on the desktop, the main screen given in Figure 2.1 is displayed. To continue
execution of the program click Continue, otherwise click Exit.

15
 Figure 2.1. Main screen of the WASP-IV program.

2.2. Planning studies and cases

All the information, inputs and outputs, for an electric system expansion planning study is
organized in WASP-IV software in a two-level structure:

• the highest level is called Planning study; each planning study has an associated
description label (such as Demonstration Case Study) and includes a set of cases
referring to a specific power system expansion planning study;

• the second level is called Case; each case has an associated description label (such as
Demonstration Case – Fixed Expansion) and corresponds to a set of assumptions on
the future expansion of the power system under study and to the associated input data
files for all WASP-IV modules.

To each planning study corresponds a disk subdirectory with a standard name Study_i, where
i is the index of the planning study in the WASP-IV list of planning studies (e.g. Study_02).
Each planning study subdirectory includes a number of folders associated with the component
cases. Each case folder has a standard name Case_j, where j is the index of the case in the list
of cases for a specific planning study (e.g. Case_03) and includes the input data and report
files for all WASP-IV modules referring to that specific case. These separate case folders are
required to distinguish different cases because the names of various input and output files will
be the same for all cases.

2.2.1. Create a new planning study

During the program installation the Study_01 subdirectory of the main Wasp4 directory is
automatically created for the demonstration case study and the corresponding description
label is listed in the Planning Study screen, as shown in Figure 2.2.

16
The user can select this planning study and click Continue button to further investigate it, can
click Back button to return to the previous screen or may want to create a new planning study
for its own study. To create a new planning study the following steps are necessary:

• click the button Create New Study;

• write the desired name (maximum 60 characters) of the new planning study (e.g. New
Planning Study) in the planning study description line;

• press Enter. At that moment the new planning study is added to the list of planning
studies on the screen, with the number indicated by the index ID on the left side of the
screen (e.g. ID=2), as shown in Figure 2.3, and the corresponding subdirectory (e.g.
Study_02) of the main Wasp4 directory is created on disk drive (e.g. C:).

Figure 2.2. Planning study selection screen.

The maximum number of planning studies allowed by the program is 10.

Figure 2.3. Create a new planning study.

17
After selecting a planning study its name will be displayed on the top of all subsequent related
screens to help the user to identify the active planning study.

2.2.2. Delete a planning study

To delete a planning study the user has to proceed as follows:

• select the planning study from the list;
• click the Delete Study button and answer with Yes the dialog box shown in Figure 2.4.
The program will delete the corresponding subdirectory and will inform the user
through a message (e.g. Deleting C:\Wasp4\Study_02).
If attempt is made to delete a planning study that still contains some undeleted cases, the
program will show the following warning message: “First delete all the cases in the study”.

Figure 2.4. Delete a planning study.

2.2.3. Create a new case
At the program installation two demonstration cases, for fixed expansion and for variable
expansion, are listed in the screen Case Selection, as shown in Figure 2.5, and two
corresponding folders: Case_01 and Case_02 are created in the Study_01 subdirectory of the
demonstration planning study. More explanations on fixed and variable expansion are given
in Section 2.4.

Figure 2.5. Case selection screen.

18
The user can select one of the two cases and click Continue to further investigate it or may
want to create a new case for its own study. After selecting a case, its name will be displayed
on the top of all subsequent related screens to help the user to identify the active case.

To create a new case one proceed as follows:

• click the Create New Case button;

• write the desired name (maximum 60 characters) of the new case (e.g. New Case) in
the case description line;

• press Enter. At that moment the new name is listed as a new case, with the number
indicated by the index ID (e.g. ID=3), a new folder (e.g. Case_03) is created on the
disk drive and the message “Directory made” is shown, as presented in Figure 2.6.

When clicking OK for the previous message, a dialog box with the following question is
displayed:

“Do you want to copy data from a previous case?”

If the answer is No, the new case will be empty and the user will have to fill in all the input
data fields for all program modules.

If the answer is Yes, a new question is displayed:

“Is the previous data for WASP-IV?”

Usually the answer for this question is Yes because there is always one of the two
demonstration cases to copy data from. If the answer is No, the list of computer drives is
shown to allow the user to select the directory where a case from the old WASP version
(WASP-III Plus case) is located. The software will copy the input data files of the old case
and will convert them to WASP-IV data files but the user will have to add a few additional
data needed by the current version.

Next the user has to answer the following question in another dialog box:

“Copy from the current study?”

If the answer is Yes, the existing cases of the current planning study are shown to select the
convenient one.

If the answer is No, the existing planning studies and then, the existing case studies of the
selected planning study are shown to select the desired one.

After making the appropriate selection the program may display some messages about some
missing files in the source directory and the message: “All files except those mentioned
copied”.

19
 Figure 2.6. Create a new case.
At the end of the case copy procedure the input data (.DAT) files for Common Case Data and
six WASP-IV modules (except REPROBAT) are copied from the subdirectory of source (old)
case to the subdirectory of destination (new) case.
The maximum number of cases allowed by the program for each planning study is 99.
2.2.4. Delete a case
To delete a case, the user will do the following:
• select the case from the list;
• click the Delete Case button in Case Selection screen (Figure 2.5);
• answer with Yes the dialog box shown in Figure 2.7:

Figure 2.7. Delete a case study.

“Are you sure you want to delete case <case name> along with data files?”

20
The program will delete both the case from the case list on the screen and the corresponding
folder on disk drive and will inform the user through a message (e.g. Deleting
C:\Wasp4\Study_02\Case_03).

2.2.5. Backup a case

To backup a case the user has to proceed as follows:

• select the case from the list;

• click the Backup Case button in Case Selection screen (Figure 2.5);

• click OK button in the dialog box: “Backup case name?”;

• select the destination drive/folder, give a name to the backup case and click OK button
in the screen shown in Figure 2.8.

The selected case is compressed and stored at the chosen destination location.

Figure 2.8. Backup a case.

2.2.6. Restore a case

To restore a case the user has to proceed as follows:

• click the Restore Case button in Case Selection screen (Figure 2.5);

• select the drive, folder and name of the compressed file [Link] corresponding
to a backup case and click the OK button;

• click the OK button in the dialog box: “Restoring of: drive:/[Link]?”;

• click the OK button for the message “Case successfully restored”.

The restored case will appear in the list of cases on the screen and a new folder including the
decompressed files is created in the appropriate planning study subdirectory. The restore case
procedure is shown in Figure 2.9.

21
 Figure 2.9. Restore a case.

2.3. Fixed or variable expansion

WASP-IV program can be used in two different modes:
• Fixed (predetermined) expansion mode: to validate and debug input data for
modules CONGEN, MERSIM and DYNPRO. In this mode the user defines itself the
expansion plan as one configuration of new power units in each year of the study
period and the WASP model just evaluates the total costs for this plan. The fixed
expansion mode can be also used to examine such aspects as cash flows, total cost of a
given expansion programme, and comparison of a limited number of expansion
policies.
• Variable (dynamic, optimization) expansion mode: to find the economically
optimal generation expansion programme for the power system within user-specified
constraints. In this mode the user defines the expansion constraints for the power
system and the WASP model generates the acceptable configurations of new power
units for each year of the study period and determines the cheapest expansion
programme meeting the constraints.

Figure 2.10. Fixed or variable expansion case study.

The choice for one of the two modes is made just after the selection of a case study, in the
screen Type of Case, shown in Figure 2.10. This choice has some consequences on the
CONGEN input data, which will be explained in Chapter 6.

22
2.4. File system
Various modules of WASP-IV use a number of files (magnetic disc files) for providing input
information, storing results/outputs and for passing information from one module to another
(Fig. 1.2). The input information entered by the user in the various input screens of each
module is converted by the Windows interface to an input data file referred with extension
.DAT. The results/output of each module are shown in report files with extension .REP and
intermediate information/results are passed from one module to another through files with
extension .BIN and .WRK. Some of the modules also produce debug files with extension
.DBG for debugging purposes. The details of different files used/produced by each module
are given in the subsequent chapters describing individual modules.
2.5. Input data
The user enters input data for each module in a number of input screens that will de described
in the respective chapters for the module: usually in one main input data screen and in other
subsequent screens for specific categories of data. The user interface converts these input data
to an input data file with extension .DAT (e.g. [Link], [Link] etc.) that
transfers the input information to the main WASP-IV code.
Each input data (.DAT) file contains a number of data records (cards) that will be also
described in the next chapters. To facilitate the identification of various records they will be
referred with a letter (e.g. X, Y, A, B etc.), an index number (e.g. 1, 2, 3,…), a combination of
letters (e.g. Da, Db etc.) or a combination of a letter and a number (e.g. 2a, 2b etc.).
When discussing the input data used by each module, reference will be made to “data format”.
The format of each input data item is very important, as the user interface will reject or
misinterpret input data that are not entered in the specified format. The data format of each
input item may be also useful when the user try to decode the content of the input files with
extension .DAT. The following formats have been used in various WASP-IV screens and
input files for presenting various input items:
The "In" format specifies an integer number of maximum n digits. (e.g. I4 may signify integer
numbers like “4” or “1998”). Generally speaking, the format 5I4 will be used to indicate a
record with five integer numbers of maximum 4 digits.
The "Fn" format specifies a floating-point decimal number which needs a maximum n-column
field, including the decimal point. As a general rule, the decimal point should always be
included in the field, even if there are no numbers to the right of the decimal point. This
decimal point can appear anywhere in the field and it is not necessary to adjust a decimal
number to the right of the field. A number which is actually an integer can be entered in an
"F" field but the decimal point must be placed at its end (e.g. “4.” or “1998.”) and it will be
handled by the computer as a decimal number. Similarly as for "In" format, 5F10.3 format
will be used to indicate a record with five floating-point decimal numbers occupying a 10-
columns field each.
To avoid errors in interpreting the floating point decimal numbers on the computers with
several options for the decimal symbol, before using WASP-IV program it is strongly
recommended to set the decimal symbol to dot (.) as follows:
Start | Settings | Control Panel | Regional Settings | Number | Decimal symbol | select dot (.).
The "An" format (Alphanumeric) specifies any combination of letters and digits of maximum n
characters; special symbols, such as asterisk [*], hyphen [-], dollar [$], etc., can also be
included in this type of format with the only restriction (for the WASP code) that the first
character cannot be a number.

23
2.6. Common case data
After the selection of one of the two types of use: fixed or variable expansion, the WASP
Modules screen is shown (Figure 2.11). This is one of the main screens of the program from
where the execution of all WASP-IV modules starts.

Figure 2.11. WASP modules selection screen.

.

Figure 2.12. Common data for the entire case.

Since all WASP-IV modules use some common data it is necessary to define these data first.
By clicking the Common Case Data button one advances to the screen shown in Figure 2.12

24
Table 2.1. Common data for the entire case

Input data Fortran Format1 Comment

name

First year of the study FIRSTYR I4

Last year of the study LASTYR I4 Max. number of years,

including first and last years, is
30
Number of periods in each year NPER I4 Maximum 12

Number of hydro-conditions NHC I4 Maximum 5

Probabilities of hydro- PROBH F6 The sum of these probabilities

conditions must be equal to 1.0

Notes to Table 2.1

(1) See Section 2.6 for Format description

These data are stored by the user interface in file [Link], which will be used by all
WASP-IV modules.

The common data for the entire case are checked internally by the user interface and if any
error is detected a warning message is displayed. The corresponding messages are described
in Section 13.2.

2.7. Execution of WASP-IV modules

Since some of the modules use information generated by other modules, the following
sequence has to be observed in the execution of WASP-IV program: Commom case data,
LOADSY, FIXSYS, VARSYS, CONGEN, MERSIM and DYNPRO.

Finding an optimal solution will involve a number of iterations of CONGEN-MERSIM-

DYNPRO runs. At this stage, no change can be made in Commom case data and any of the
first three modules. If any change is deemed necessary in the input of any of these modules, a
fresh start has to be made.

Execution of REMERSIM will be required in the “Variable (dynamic) expansion case” (as
explained in Chapters 6 and 7) after finding an optimal solution through iterations of
CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO, as well as in the case of “Fixed (predetermined) expansion
case” for obtaining detailed output. Finally, after REMERSIM run, the REPROBAT module
can be executed to generate a report of the case study (in fact, REPROBAT can be executed
after successful execution of any one or more modules, however in such a case the reports
requested from REPROBAT have to be only related to the respective modules).

25
When a new case is created, by copying an old case, the input data (.DAT) files for all
WASP-IV modules keep the input data from the old case. Therefore, before executing a
module the user must first check and modify the input data according to the requirements of
the current case.

For a successful execution in each case, the computer will respond “FILES ARE CLOSED”.
In case of an error, some message will appear, which in most of the cases would be due to
some format mismatch in the input file or due to some inconsistency in the inputs to
preceding modules. Rectify the error, or consult computer analyst, and re-run the program.

For correct execution of various modules, some important points are to be noted (these are
also explained in other chapters). At the end of execution of each module and before moving
to the next, the output report file must be checked for confirmation of successful execution of
the module.

Secondly, during iterative process in search of optimal solution, when CONGEN-MERSIM-

DYNPRO modules are executed, no change should be made in the input of MERSIM
(loading order, maintenance schedule, spinning reserves or group-limitations), because in this
case the configurations simulated in different runs will not be consistent.

Thirdly, as explained in Chapter 10, before moving to Variable (dynamic) expansion case, a
number of runs of different Fixed (predetermined) expansion cases should be made. One of
these Fixed (predetermined) expansion cases will be used as the starting point for
optimization process of the Variable (dynamic) expansion case.

Finally, at the end of Variable (dynamic) expansion case, when optimal solution has been
found, the sensitivity studies could also be made. In this case, a number of DYNPRO runs
may be required to study the impact of any change in the economic parameters on the optimal
solution or new CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO iterations might be necessary (see Chapter 11
for more details).

To start the execution of any of WASP-IV modules the user must click the button with the
corresponding name from the screen given in Figure 2.11.

26
 CHAPTER 3. EXECUTION OF LOADSY

To start the execution of LOADSY module the user must click the LOADSY button in the

WASP Modules screen (Fig. 2.11). The LOADSY main screen will be displayed (Figure
3.1). This screen has the following four options:

• Enter/Modify LOADSY Input, to enter or modify data for the module;

• Execute LOADSY, to execute the module, after completing the input data
entering/modifying;

• View LOADSY Output, to view or print the module output;

• Back, to return to the previous screen.

This structure is similar for all WASP-IV modules.

Figure 3.1. Main screen LOADSY.

3.1. Input/output files

The LOADSY module of WASP-IV code uses an input file called [Link]. This file
is created/updated automatically by the user interface using the input data provided by the
user in several screens, as described in the next section. LOADSY module produces two
output files, namely [Link] and [Link]. The [Link] file
contains information on system load to be used by other modules of WASP-IV.
[Link] is the output file of this module, which reports the results of present
execution. This file must be reviewed by the user, to confirm successful execution of
LOADSY before moving to the next module.

3.2. Input data preparation

The necessary input information for LOADSY module includes:

• annual and period peak loads;

• shapes of period load duration curves (LDCs).

27
Input data on LDCs must be specified for each period into which the year has been sub-
divided, at least for the first year of study and may be changed every year if necessary.

Input data on LDCs are prepared using the normalized load duration curve of the period, for
which load magnitudes are expressed as fractions of the peak load of the period and the
respective load duration values as fractions of the total hours of the period. Input data on
normalized LDC for the periods may be expressed, either in the form of a fifth-order
polynomial describing the shape of the curve for each period, or in a discrete form by points
(load magnitude and load duration) of the curve. For a given case study these two options are
mutually exclusive in the same year, i.e. the same LDC shape description method must be
used for all periods of the same year. It is, nevertheless, permitted to change the LDC input
option from year to year with the only restriction that each time a change of the option is
made, the complete set of LDC's input information for all periods must be included for that
year.

For convenience of the calculations of system reliability and plant generation performed using
probabilistic simulation, the LOADSY module internally reverses the axes of each LDC to
generate the so-called “inverted (normalized) load duration curve”. Furthermore, this inverted
LDC is expressed in terms of a Fourier Series approximating the shape of the curve and in
this format the information on system load is transferred to the subsequent WASP-IV
modules.

When choosing the Enter/Modify LOADSY Input option in the main screen LOADSY, the
LOADSY INPUT screen, given in Figure 3.2, is shown.

Figure 3.2. LOADSY input data main screen.

In this screen the user can enter/modify data relating to:

• annual peak loads (MW);

• years for which period peak load ratios will be entered; by clicking Add and Del
buttons, different years can be added or deleted;

• period peak load ratios for the selected years (fractions);

• years for which input data on normalized LDC for the periods will be entered; by
clicking Add and Del buttons, different years can be added or deleted;

28
 • method for LDC description: fifth-order polynomial (Coefficients option) or point-by-
point (Points option);

• number of cosine terms to be used in the Fourier approximation to the inverted load
duration curve;

• printout option: Normal or Extended (see Table 3.1 for details).

From this screen one can advance alternatively to other two subsequent screens to enter data
on normalized LDC shape for each period of the previously selected years by one of the two
mentioned methods.

If the fifth-order polynomial option for LDC input data description is chosen, then Load
Duration Curve Coefficients screen, shown in Figure 3.3, is used to give the coefficients ai,
i=0,1,…,5 of the polynomial approximating the normalized LDC for each period of the year.
It may happen that these coefficients are identical for two or more periods; however, it is still
necessary to have a separate record for each period.

Figure 3.3. Load duration curve given by fifth-order polynomial coefficients.

If the period LDCs are to be input by points of the curve, then LDC Points screen, shown in
Figure 3.4, is used to give the required information. Each point is described by the load
magnitude (LD) and load duration (DUR) as fractions of the period peak load and the total
hours of the period. It is necessary that the first point on the curve be adjusted to the period
peak load [LD(1) = 1.0, DUR(1) = 0.0] and the last point to the minimum load of the period
[LD(NPTS) = minimum load and DUR(NPTS) = 1.0]. Points must be arranged in a
descending order in such a way that the LDC does not have a point with positive slope.

When the button Back is clicked to exit the LOADSY INPUT screen and to return to the
main screen LOADSY, the input data file [Link] is updated by the user interface
according to the last data changes.

All necessary data for the execution of LOADSY module, both for filling in the fields of
various screens and to decode the [Link] file, are described in Table 3.1.

29
 Figure 3.4. Load duration curve given by points.

The following additional comments related to the above-mentioned input data are necessary:
• Period peak load ratios and LDC data must be supplied for the first year of study
period and may be changed when necessary; if no change, the data from previous year
will be used for subsequent years.
• Regardless of the LDC input data option used, the order in which the curves for the
different periods are given must be consistent with the ordering of the period peak load
ratios. Furthermore, the order must be consistent with the ordering of hydro data for
each period described in modules FIXSYS and VARSYS or the inconsistency will be
manifested as wrong answers in module MERSIM.
• Certain input data are checked up by the user interface and by LOADSY program to
make sure that the requested calculations for the run are within the capabilities of the
program and that there are no inconsistencies between input information. These
checks and the corresponding error messages are described in Section 13.3.
3.3. Sample problem
3.3.1. Input data
Figure 3.5 shows a partial listing of the [Link] file created by the user interface
using the input data provided in the previous LOADSY screens (Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4) but
also in the Common Case Data screen (Fig. 2.12), and used for executing the LOADSY run
for the sample problem, DEMOCASE.
Some lines in Fig. 3.5 have been identified with a number (for the points describing LDC
shape) or extra information (end of year records), not read by the program and appearing to
the right of the data fields in the respective record, in order to facilitate the discussion which
follows.
The first line of [Link] input data file is the title of the study, which is the same as
the case name given and selected by the user in the screen Case Selection (Fig. 2.5). When a
new case is created by copying an old case, the input data (.DAT) files for all WASP-IV
modules keep the old titles (name of the old case). The title is changed to the current case
name in the file [Link] when the user selects the option Enter/Modify LOADSY
Input in the main LOADSY screen. The same procedure is valid for all WASP-IV modules.
This information is used by LOADSY for printing purposes, i.e. to produce the cover page
identifying the output (see Section 3.3.2).

30
Table 3.1. (page 1) Input data for LOADSY module of WASP-IV

Input data Record Fortran Format Comment

type1 name 2

Title of the study3. X IDENT A60

General input data and peak loads (Common Case Data and LOADSY INPUT screens)
Number of periods per year3. NPER I4
Number of cosine terms to NOCOF I4 Maximum = 100;
be used in the Fourier Recommended = 50.
approximation to the A
inverted load duration curve.
Output option. IOPT I4 Normal (“0” in [Link] file): calls for
normal output;
Extended (“1” in [Link] file): equal to
normal output but including, in addition, the
Fourier coefficients calculated by the program
each time a new set of LDC shapes is read in.
Annual peak load (MW). B ANPKM F8
W
Year of ANPKMW. JAHR I6

Index number telling the 1 INDEX I4 “1” indicates end of input data for the current
computer what to do next. year;
“2” indicates that one or two type-2 records
(depending on NPER) follow defining the
period peak load;
“3” indicates that the periods LDC data are
expressed in polynomial form and that one
type-3 record follows for each period;
“4” indicates that periods LDC data are
expressed by points of the curve and that
groups of records type-4 (-4a and –4b)
follow.
Ratio of the peak load in 2 PUPPK 10F8 As many entries as periods per year.
each period, expressed as a One of the ratios must be 1.0.
fraction of the annual peak.
LDC data, by coefficients of the fifth-order polynomial - one LDC for each period of the year (Load
Duration Curve Coefficients screen)
a0 constant coefficient of the 3 COEF 6F12
fifth-order polynomial
representing the original
LDC for the period
(normally 1.0).
a1 coefficient of first order.
a2 coefficient of second
order.
a3 coefficient of third order.
a4 coefficient of fourth order.
a5 coefficient of fifth order.

31
Table 3.1. (page 2) Input data for LOADSY module of WASP-IV

Input data Record Fortran Format Comment

type1 name 2

LDC data, by points - one LDC for each period of the year (LDC Points screen)
Number of periods for which 4 NP I4
LDC data follow.
Number of points 4a NPTS I4 Maximum number of points = 100.
representing the LDC of the
period.
Load magnitude (as a LD F10 Load points are to be given in descending order
fraction of the period peak of load magnitudes (LDC should not have a
load) of each point of the positive slope anywhere).
4b
LDC. The first and last points must be adjusted,
respectively, to the peak and minimum loads of
Load duration (as a fraction of DUR F10 the period, i.e.:
total hours of the period) of LD.
LD (1) = peak load = 1.0; DUR(1) = 0.0
LD (NPTS) = min. load; DUR(NPTS) = 1.0

Notes to Table 3.1

1. Relevant only for decoding the content of [Link] file but not for filling in input data screens.
2. See Section 2.6 for Format description.
3. Not entered by the user in the current module. Handled by the interface.

The second line is a type-A record specifying the number of periods per year (4); the number
of cosine terms to be considered in the Fourier Series (50); and the printout option chosen (1 –
Extended). The number of periods, entered in Common Case Data screen, is added in the
type-A record by the interface. The third line specifies the annual peak load (6000. MW) and
the corresponding year (1998) for the first year of the study. The fourth line (2 in column 4) is
a type-1 INDEX=2 record indicating to the main WASP-IV code that a type-2 record follows
giving the peak load of each period as a fraction of the annual peak (period peak load ratios).

In the sample problem, the fifth-order polynomial option has been chosen for input data on
load duration curves for the periods of the year 1998. Thus, the 6th input line (3 in column 4)
is a type-1 INDEX=3 record indicating that it is followed by a type-3 record for each period
(four in this case) with the coefficients of the polynomial representing the load duration curve
of the period. Next line (1 in column 4) is a type-1 INDEX=1 record indicating that the input
information for the year have been completed. It should be noticed that the information
appearing to the right of this record is not read by the program and has been added here only
for identification purposes.

The data for next year follow, including one type-B record with the annual peak load (6333.
MW) and the year (1999), followed by a type-1 INDEX=1 record indicating the end of input
information for the year. Similar groups are presented for the subsequent years (2000 to
2005). In this case, the data specified on type-2 and type-3 records (relating to period peak
load ratios and to the coefficients of the polynomial representing the load duration curve of
the periods) for the first year of study will apply to all these years. Again, the information
appearing to the right of the records indicating the end of years have been added only for
identification purposes.

32
The next group of input data lines corresponds to the information for year 2006, starting with
one type-B record on the annual peak load, followed by one type-1 INDEX=4 record (4 in
column 4) to specify that the information on period's LDC is supplied using the point-by-point
option1.

The next line is a type-4 record with the number of periods (4) for which new data for the
period's LDC are to be specified in subsequent type-4a and type-4b records.

The next input line is a type-4a record which shows in columns 3-4 that 61 points will be used
to specify the LDC of the first period. Thus, this record is followed by 61 type-4b records,
each one with the load magnitude and load duration for each of the LDC points selected. Note
that the first type-4b record must specify the peak load of the period (LD = 1.0 and DUR =
0.0) and the last one the minimum load of the period (LD = 0.4 and DUR = 1.0). Similar
groups of records follow for the second period (60 points), third period (61 points) and fourth
period (60 points).

For years 2007 to 2017, only two records per year are specified: one with the annual peak
load and the second (1) indicating the end of the input data for the year. There are no changes
in the data for period peak load ratios and LDC shapes from the previous year (2006).

1
This option is used here only for demonstration of the capabilities of LOADSY. In fact, the shape of the LDCs
used to define the given points are identical to the respective ones used for the definition of the LDC as a fifth
order polynomial used for 1998. For a real case study, it is strongly recommended to use only one of the two
options for LDC input in all years of study.

33
 DEMOCASE: CASE STUDY FOR THE WASP-IV USERS MANUAL

4 50 1
6000 1998
2
0.90 0.87 0.93 1.00
3
1.0000 -3.6000 16.6000 -36.800 36.0000 -12.800
1.0000 -3.0000 13.8500 -31.200 31.0000 -11.200
1.0000 -3.0000 13.8500 -31.200 31.0000 -11.200
1.0000 -3.6000 16.6000 -36.800 36.0000 -12.800
1 (END OF 1998)
6333.0 1999
1 (END OF 1999)
6725.65 2000
1 (END OF 2000)
7109.01 2001
1 (END OF 2001)
7496.45 2002
1 (END OF 2002)
7897.51 2003
1 (END OF 2003)
8304.23 2004
1 (END OF 2004)
8702.83 2005
1 (END OF 2005)
9120.57 2006
4
4
61
1.0000 0.0000 1
0.9964 0.0010 2
0.9929 0.0020 3
0.9893 0.0030 4
0.9824 0.0050 5
0.9656 0.0100 6
0.9496 0.0150 7
0.9344 0.0200 8
0.9060 0.0300 9
. . .
. . .
. . .
0.4429 0.8800 55
0.4401 0.9000 56
0.4364 0.9200 57
0.4313 0.9400 58
0.4240 0.9600 59
0.4138 0.9800 60
0.4000 1.0000 61

Figure. 3.5. (page 1) WASP-IV LOADSY input data for the sample problem.

34
60
1.0000 0.0000 1
0.9970 0.0010 2
0.9941 0.0020 3
0.9853 0.0050 4
0.9714 0.0100 5
0.9580 0.0150 6
0.9453 0.0200 7
0.9216 0.0300 8
0.9002 0.0400 9
. . .
0.4993 0.9000 55
0.4940 0.9200 56
0.4871 0.9400 57
0.4780 0.9600 58
0.4658 0.9800 59
0.4500 1.0000 60
61
1.0000 0.0000 1
0.9964 0.0010 2
0.9929 0.0020 3
0.9893 0.0030 4
0.9824 0.0050 5
0.9656 0.0100 6
0.9496 0.0150 7
0.9344 0.0200 8
0.9060 0.0300 9
. . .
0.4429 0.8800 55
0.4401 0.9000 56
0.4364 0.9200 57
0.4313 0.9400 58
0.4240 0.9600 59
0.4138 0.9800 60
0.4000 1.0000 61
60
1.0000 0.0000 1
0.9970 0.0010 2
0.9941 0.0020 3
0.9853 0.0050 4
0.9714 0.0100 5
0.9580 0.0150 6
0.9453 0.0200 7
0.9216 0.0300 8
0.9002 0.0400 9
. . .
0.4993 0.9000 55
0.4940 0.9200 56
0.4871 0.9400 57
0.4780 0.9600 58
0.4658 0.9800 59
0.4500 1.0000 60
1 (END OF 2006)

Figure 3.5. (page 2) WASP-IV LOADSY input data for the sample problem.

35
9558.36 2007
1 (END OF 2007)
10017.2 2008
1 (END OF 2008)
10488. 2009
1 (END OF 2009)
10980.9 2010
1 (END OF 2010)
11497. 2011
1 (END OF 2011)
12025.9 2012
1 (END OF 2012)
12579.1 2013
1 (END OF 2013)
13157.7 2014
1 (END OF 2014)
13749.8 2015
1 (END OF 2015)
14368.5 2016
1 (END OF 2016)
15015.1 2017
1 (END OF 2017)

Figure 3.5. (page 3) WASP-IV LOADSY input data for the sample problem.

3.3.2. Printout

When clicking View LOADSY Output button in the main screen LOADSY, the
[Link] file is displayed with WordPad editor or with an alternative editor chosen by
the user at the installation of WASP-IV computer code.
Figure 3.6 illustrates the LOADSY output results for the sample problem, DEMOCASE, for
several years of the study period (1998, 1999 and 2006), as reported in the output file
[Link]. Page 1 of Fig. 3.6 corresponds to the cover page printed by LOADSY, which
is used to identify the run. It contains the title of the study, the number of periods defined for
each year, hours in each period (in this case 2190 since the year has been sub-divided in four
periods) and the number of coefficients of cosine terms used in the Fourier approximation of
the inverted load duration curve (50).
Page 2 of Fig. 3.6 shows the Load System description for the first year of the study (1998).
This starts with the yearly input data on annual peak load and the period peak loads as
fractions of the annual peak. Next comes the load description for each period of the year,
beginning with the input data for the polynomial coefficients representing the load duration
curve of the period, followed by the calculated values for the period: 1) peak and minimum
load, both in MW; 2) energy demand (in GWh); 3) load factor (in %). (Energy demand and
load factor values are both given for each of the two approximations to the load duration
curve: integration of the LDC entered either by fifth-order polynomial coefficients or by
points and after conversion to Fourier Series); and 4) the coefficients of the cosine terms of the
Fourier approximation to the inverted load duration curve (since in this case the printout
option was set to Extended). The constant coefficient, a0, is given separately, and the other
terms are given in groups of 10 per line. After the last period has been considered, the
program prints an annual summary showing the values of the energy demand and the load
factor as calculated for the polynomial (input) and Fourier (output) approximations to the load
duration curve.

36
A similar output is given for each year of the study, but if no new LDC input data are given,
the Fourier coefficients for the periods are not printed again. Page 3 of Fig. 3.6 shows the
Load System description for year 1999. An output similar to the one in page 3 will be printed
for all years of the study if the printout option is set to Normal, regardless of how many
changes are introduced to the load duration curve shapes throughout the study period. For this
reason, the use of Normal printout option is particularly advisable for WASP studies
considering more than 4 periods per year and different load duration curve shapes throughout
the study period, as a means to reduce the LOADSY printout.
Pages 4 and 5 of Fig. 3.6 show the (partial) results of the LOADSY run of DEMOCASE for
year 2006, for which the point-by-point input option for LDC information has been used. At
the beginning the year annual peak load and year are listed, followed by the data on period's
LDC given as input for the first two periods of the year (because the LDCs for periods 3 and 4
are similar to those of periods 1 and 2). Only the first and last portions of the listing of these
input data are shown on page 4 of the figure. Since the shape of the period's LDC has not been
altered, the results on page 5 for the Fourier Series coefficients and load factors are quite
similar to the respective ones for the first year of study (page 2), except for some minor
differences, which are considered negligible. These differences, however, could have been
avoided by defining a greater number of points for the period LDCs of year 2006.
As mentioned in Section 3.2, certain input data are internally checked by the program and in
case of an "error" they will cause interruption of the program execution, and printing of an
"error message". If the message does not correspond to any of the LOADSY "error messages"
described in Chapter 13 the user should ask the WASP analyst to interpret it. In some cases
there is no error message but something is obviously wrong, such as a load factor greater than
100%. In such cases, correct the errors and consult the WASP analyst as necessary.

37
 WASP COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
LOADSY MODULE
CASE STUDY
DEMOCASE: CASE STUDY FOR THE WASP-IV USERS MANUAL
********************************************************* *
* *
* NUMBER OF PERIODS PER YEAR = 4 *
* *
* HOURS IN EACH PERIOD = 2190.00 *
* *
* NUMBER OF COEFFICIENTS OF COSINE TERMS *
* IN FOURIER APPROXIMATION OF THE L.D.C. = 50 *
* *
********************************************************* *

Figure 3.6. (page 1) LOADSY printout for the sample [Link] description-1998.

38
 PERIOD PEAK LOADS AS FRACTION OF ANNUAL PEAK LOAD :
0.90000 0.8700 0.9300 1.0000
* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 1 * * * * * * * * * *
INPUT POLYNOMIAL COEFFICIENTS OF THE L.D.C ARE :
1.00000 -3.60000 16.60000 -36.80000 36.00000 -12.80000
PEAK LOAD : 5400.0 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 2160.0 MW

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR

(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION 7095.6 60.00
FOURIER SERIES : 7095.9 60.00

FOURIER COEFFICIENTS FOR INVERTED L.D.C. OF THE PERIOD :

CONSTANT TERM -AOO- IS : 0.8571429
COEFFICIENTS OF COSINE TERMS ARE :
0.5914358 0.1190372 -0.1001728 -0.0637807 0.0009492 0.0119581 0.0060982 0.0110108 0.0129758 -0.0059543
-0.0213913 -0.0075546 0.0125758 0.0121567 -0.0000323 -0.0059782 -0.0036225 -0.0015444 -0.0012656 0.0026733
0.0060277 0.0014792 -0.0051021 -0.0047674 0.0007260 0.0037691 0.0018198 -0.0005167 -0.0006604 -0.0011445
-0.0017181 0.0000382 0.0023317 0.0018547 -0.0009078 -0.0022762 -0.0006563 0.0010610 0.0008485 0.0002470
0.0000868 -0.0003751 -0.0009006 -0.0004871 0.0007919 0.0012151 -0.0000165 -0.0010468 -0.0005940 0.0002522
* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 2 * * * * * * * * * *
INPUT POLYNOMIAL COEFFICIENTS OF THE L.D.C ARE :
1.00000 -3.00000 13.85000 -31.20000 31.00000 -11.20000

PEAK LOAD : 5220.0 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 2349.0 MW

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR

(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 7430.7 65.00
FOURIER SERIES : 7430.6 65.00

FOURIER COEFFICIENTS FOR INVERTED L.D.C. OF THE PERIOD :

CONSTANT TERM -AOO- IS : 0.8965517
COEFFICIENTS OF COSINE TERMS ARE :
0.6048022 0.0903805 -0.1289211 -0.0577438 0.0220275 0.0210460 0.0058457 0.0047452 -0.0004984 -0.0133372
-0.0116268 0.0087155 0.0162260 -0.0001980 -0.0116095 -0.0045610 0.0037899 0.0035679 0.0009932 0.0003636
-0.0009393 -0.0033337 -0.0016296 0.0035034 0.0035242 -0.0016724 -0.0033617 -0.0002237 0.0018436 0.0008765
-0.0003714 -0.0002772 -0.0002463 -0.0007512 0.0000587 0.0013826 0.0004761 -0.0012929 -0.0009248 0.0006832
0.0010209 -0.0000234 -0.0006919 -0.0002653 0.0001136 0.0000525 0.0003344 0.0004346 -0.0003295 -0.0007820
* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 3 * * * * * * * * * *
INPUT POLYNOMIAL COEFFICIENTS OF THE L.D.C ARE :
1.00000 -3.00000 13.85000 -31.20000 31.00000 -11.20000

PEAK LOAD : 5580.0 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 2511.0 MW

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR

(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 7943.1 65.00
FOURIER SERIES : 7943.1 65.00

FOURIER COEFFICIENTS FOR INVERTED L.D.C. OF THE PERIOD :

CONSTANT TERM -AOO- IS : 0.8965517
COEFFICIENTS OF COSINE TERMS ARE :
0.6048022 0.0903805 -0.1289211 -0.0577438 0.0220275 0.0210460 0.0058457 0.0047452 -0.0004984 -0.0133372
-0.0116268 0.0087155 0.0162260 -0.0001980 -0.0116095 -0.0045610 0.0037899 0.0035679 0.0009932 0.0003636
-0.0009393 -0.0033337 -0.0016296 0.0035034 0.0035242 -0.0016724 -0.0033617 -0.0002237 0.0018436 0.0008765
-0.0003714 -0.0002772 -0.0002463 -0.0007512 0.0000587 0.0013826 0.0004761 -0.0012929 -0.0009248 0.0006832
0.0010209 -0.0000234 -0.0006919 -0.0002653 0.0001136 0.0000525 0.0003344 0.0004346 -0.0003295 -0.0007820
* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 4 * * * * * * * * * *
INPUT POLYNOMIAL COEFFICIENTS OF THE L.D.C ARE :
1.00000 -3.60000 16.60000 -36.80000 36.00000 -12.80000

PEAK LOAD : 6000.0 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 2400.0 MW

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR

(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 7884.0 60.00
FOURIER SERIES : 7884.3 60.00

FOURIER COEFFICIENTS FOR INVERTED L.D.C. OF THE PERIOD :

CONSTANT TERM -AOO- IS : 0.8571429
COEFFICIENTS OF COSINE TERMS ARE :
0.5914358 0.1190372 -0.1001728 -0.0637807 0.0009492 0.0119581 0.0060982 0.0110108 0.0129758 -0.0059543
-0.0213913 -0.0075546 0.0125758 0.0121567 -0.0000323 -0.0059782 -0.0036225 -0.0015444 -0.0012656 0.0026733
0.0060277 0.0014792 -0.0051021 -0.0047674 0.0007260 0.0037691 0.0018198 -0.0005167 -0.0006604 -0.0011445
-0.0017181 0.0000382 0.0023317 0.0018547 -0.0009078 -0.0022762 -0.0006563 0.0010610 0.0008485 0.0002470
0.0000868 -0.0003751 -0.0009006 -0.0004871 0.0007919 0.0012151 -0.0000165 -0.0010468 -0.0005940 0.0002522
***************** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****************

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR

(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 30353.4 57.75
FOURIER SERIES : 30354.0 57.75
* * * * * * * * * END OF DATA FOR YEAR 1998 * * * * * * * * *

Figure 3.6. (page 2) LOADSY printout for the sample problem. Load description – 1998.

39
PEAK LOAD FOR YEAR **** 1999 **** IS : 6333.0 MW
PERIOD PEAK LOADS AS FRACTION OF ANNUAL PEAK LOAD :
0.9000 0.8700 0.9300 1.0000

* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 1 * * * * * * * * * *
INPUT POLYNOMIAL COEFFICIENTS OF THE L.D.C ARE :
1.00000 -3.60000 16.60000 -36.80000 36.00000 -12.80000

PEAK LOAD : 5699.7 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 2279.9 MW

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR

(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 7489.4 60.00
FOURIER SERIES : 7489.7 60.00
* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 2 * * * * * * * * * *
INPUT POLYNOMIAL COEFFICIENTS OF THE L.D.C ARE :
1.00000 -3.00000 13.85000 -31.20000 31.00000 -11.20000

PEAK LOAD : 5509.7 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 2479.4 MW

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR

(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 7843.1 65.00
FOURIER SERIES : 7843.0 65.00
* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 3 * * * * * * * * * *
INPUT POLYNOMIAL COEFFICIENTS OF THE L.D.C ARE :
1.00000 -3.00000 13.85000 -31.20000 31.00000 -11.20000

PEAK LOAD : 5889.7 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 2650.4 MW

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR

(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 8384.0 65.00
FOURIER SERIES : 8383.9 65.00
* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 4 * * * * * * * * * *
INPUT POLYNOMIAL COEFFICIENTS OF THE L.D.C ARE :
1.00000 -3.60000 16.60000 -36.80000 36.00000 -12.80000

PEAK LOAD : 6333.0 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 2533.2 MW

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR

(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 8321.6 60.00
FOURIER SERIES : 8321.9 60.00

***************** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****************

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR

(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 32038.0 57.75
FOURIER SERIES : 32038.6 57.75

* * * * * * * * * END OF DATA FOR YEAR 1999 * * * * * * * * *

Figure 3.6. (page 3) LOADSY printout for the sample problem. Load description – 1999.

40
 PEAK LOAD FOR YEAR **** 2006 **** IS : 9120.6 MW
NUMBER OF PERIODS FOR WHICH DATA FOLLOW : 4
INDEX OF PERIODS TO BE CHANGED : 1 2 3 4
PERIOD 1 : 61 POINTS
LD DUR
1.0000 0.0000
0.9964 0.0010
0.9929 0.0020
0.9893 0.0030
0.9824 0.0050
0.9656 0.0100
0.9496 0.0150
0.9344 0.0200
0.9060 0.0300
0.8803 0.0400
0.8571 0.0500
0.8363 0.0600
. .
. .
0.4537 0.8000
0.4504 0.8200
0.4477 0.8400
0.4453 0.8600
0.4429 0.8800
0.4401 0.9000
0.4364 0.9200
0.4313 0.9400
0.4240 0.9600
0.4138 0.9800
0.4000 1.0000
PERIOD 2 : 60 POINTS
LD DUR
1.0000 0.0000
0.9970 0.0010
0.9941 0.0020
0.9853 0.0050
0.9714 0.0100
0.9580 0.0150
0.9453 0.0200
0.9216 0.0300
0.9002 0.0400
0.8809 0.0500
0.8635 0.0600
0.8479 0.0700
. .
. .
0.5172 0.8000
0.5135 0.8200
0.5102 0.8400
0.5070 0.8600
0.5035 0.8800
0.4993 0.9000
0.4940 0.9200
0.4871 0.9400
0.4780 0.9600
0.4658 0.9800
0.4500 1.0000

Figure 3.6. (page 4) LOADSY printout for the sample problem. Input information for 2006.

41
 PERIOD PEAK LOADS AS FRACTION OF ANNUAL PEAK LOAD :
0.9000 0.8700 0.9300 1.0000
* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 1 * * * * * * * * * *

PEAK LOAD : 8208.5 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 3283.4 MW

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR
(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 10786.6 60.00
FOURIER SERIES : 10787.0 60.01

FOURIER COEFFICIENTS FOR INVERTED L.D.C. OF THE PERIOD :

CONSTANT TERM -AOO- IS : 0.8571885
COEFFICIENTS OF COSINE TERMS ARE :
0.5914137 0.1189862 -0.1001288 -0.0637293 0.0009174 0.0119343 0.0061207 0.0109987 0.0129295 -0.0059423
-0.0213123 -0.0075242 0.0125015 0.0120916 -0.0000009 -0.0059314 -0.0036237 -0.0015402 0.0012469 0.0026469
0.0059729 0.0014753 -0.0050470 -0.0047250 0.0007132 0.0037323 0.0017968 -0.0005231 -0.0006472 -0.0011112
-0.0016963 0.0000239 0.0022995 0.0018330 -0.0009031 -0.0022460 -0.0006314 0.0010540 0.0008270 0.0002342
0.0000808 -0.0003706 -0.0008781 -0.0004681 0.0007793 0.0011855 -0.0000226 -0.0010265 0.0005828 0.0002464
* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 2 * * * * * * * * * *

PEAK LOAD : 7934.9 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 3570.7 MW

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR

(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 11295.6 65.00
FOURIER SERIES : 11295.5 65.00

FOURIER COEFFICIENTS FOR INVERTED L.D.C. OF THE PERIOD :

CONSTANT TERM -AOO- IS : 0.8965703
COEFFICIENTS OF COSINE TERMS ARE :
0.6047779 0.0903512 -0.1288676 -0.0576992 0.0219827 0.0210080 0.0058650 0.0047489 -0.0005119 -0.0133049
-0.0115872 0.0086774 0.0161539 -0.0001879 -0.0115338 -0.0045395 0.0037465 0.0035445 0.0009966 0.0003562
-0.0009289 -0.0032921 -0.0016218 0.0034553 0.0034920 -0.0016482 -0.0033272 -0.0002189 0.0018321 0.0008634
-0.0003862 -0.0002780 -0.0002240 -0.0007338 0.0000483 0.0013639 0.0004716 -0.0012876 -0.0009169 0.0006919
0.0010199 -0.0000355 -0.0006973 -0.0002586 0.0001185 0.0000518 0.0003336 0.0004331 -0.0003306 -0.0007798

* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 3 * * * * * * * * * *
PEAK LOAD : 8482.1 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 3392.9 MW
ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR
(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 11146.1 60.00
FOURIER SERIES : 11146.6 60.01

FOURIER COEFFICIENTS FOR INVERTED L.D.C. OF THE PERIOD : (similar to those of period 1)

* * * * * * * * * * PERIOD 4 * * * * * * * * * *
PEAK LOAD : 9120.6 MW MINIMUM LOAD : 4104.3 MW
ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR
(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 12983.4 65.00
FOURIER SERIES : 12983.4 65.00

FOURIER COEFFICIENTS FOR INVERTED L.D.C. OF THE PERIOD : (similar to those of period 2)

***************** ANNUAL SUMMARY *****************

ENERGY DEMAND LOAD FACTOR
(GWH) (%)
INTEGRATION : 46211.6 57.84
FOURIER SERIES : 46212.5 57.84

* * * * * * * * * END OF DATA FOR YEAR 2006 * * * * * * * * *

Figure 3.6. (page 5) LOADSY printout for the sample problem. Load description – 2006.

42
 CHAPTER 4. EXECUTION OF FIXSYS

To start the execution of FIXSYS module the user must click the FIXSYS button in the
WASP Modules screen (Fig. 2.11). The FIXSYS main screen will be shown (Figure 4.1).
This screen has the following four options:

• Enter/Modify FIXSYS Input, to enter or modify data for the module;

• Execute FIXSYS, to execute the module, after completing the input data
entering/modifying;

• View FIXSYS Output, to view or print the module output;

• Back, to return to the previous screen.

Figure 4.1. Main screen FIXSYS.

4.1. Input/output files

FIXSYS module of WASP-IV uses an input file called [Link]. This file is
created/updated automatically by the Windows interface using the input data provided by the
user in several screens, as described in the next section. It contains all the necessary
information about the existing plants (thermal, hydro and pumped-storage plants) and the
ones which are already committed. FIXSYS module produces three files, namely
[Link], [Link] and [Link]. The [Link] and
[Link] will be used by other modules of the model. The results of this module are
reported in [Link] file. This file should be reviewed by the user to check successful
execution before proceeding to the next module.

4.2. Input data preparation

When choosing the Enter/Modify FIXSYS Input option in the main screen FIXSYS, the
input data main screen FIXSYS_Input, given in Figure 4.2, is displayed.

In this screen the user can enter/modify the following types of data:

• fuel types of thermal power plants;

43
 • code names of the existing and decided (committed) thermal power plants;

• technical and economic characteristics of existing and decided thermal power plants;

• total number of group-limitations for thermal power plants;

• code names of two pollutants emitted by thermal power plants;

• penalty factors for the loss-of-load probability and for the unserved energy, to be used
when determining the optimal mix of strategies with the modules CONGEN-
MERSIM-DYNPRO;or advance to other input data subsequent screens by clicking the
suitable buttons.

Figure 4.2. FIXSYS input data main screen.

The fuel types are defined in the Fuel Types form by a fuel number (0 to 9), a code name and
a fuel type description. Fuel types defined here are to be used for the thermal plants from both
FIXSYS and VARSYS modules. Therefore, a fuel type must be given as input here even if it
is not used in FIXSYS but it is associated to plants that will be described in VARSYS.

The code names of FIXSYS thermal power plants can be entered in the Thermal Plants
window pops up from the upper-left corner of the screen. When clicking the Add Plant
button, a new thermal power plant code name can be added to the list and its technical and
economic characteristics can be entered in the Characteristics of Thermal Plant form.
Power plants can be removed from the list by highlighting the respective plant and clicking
Remove Plant button. Based on the final format of this list the Windows interface calculates
the number NTHPL (see Table 4.1) of thermal plants in FIXSYS.

A WASP thermal power plant may be a real station or a fictitious one including similar units
from different real stations and is characterized by the following technical and economic
parameters:

• number of identical units in the power station at start of study;

• minimum operating level of each unit (MW);

• maximum unit generating capacity (MW);

44
 • fuel (plant) type number (0, 1, 2, …, 9);

• heat rate at minimum operating level (kcal/kWh);

• average incremental heat rate between minimum and maximum operating levels
(kcal/kWh);

• unit spinning reserve (as % of maximum generating capacity);

• unit equivalent forced outage rate (%);

• number of days per year required for scheduled maintenance of each unit;

• maintenance class size (MW);

• domestic fuel costs (¢/106 kcal);

• foreign fuel costs (¢/106 kcal);

• fixed component of non-fuel operation and maintenance cost ($/kW-month) of each

unit (it is assumed to be a domestic cost);

• variable component of non-fuel operation and maintenance cost ($/MWh) of each unit
(it is assumed to be a domestic cost);

• heat value of the fuel used by plant, measuring the heat equivalent of 1 kg fuel used
(kcal/kg);

• emission factor of the first pollutant (default: SO2), the ratio of emitted pollutant and
fuel used in plant (%);

• emission factor of the second pollutant (default: NOx), the ratio of emitted pollutant
and fuel used in plant (%).

From the same FIXSYS_Input main screen, by clicking the appropriate buttons, the user can
advance to the following subsequent screens:

• FIXSYS_Emissions, shown in Figure 4.3, where the thermal power plants involved in
real emissions of the two pollutants are defined;

• FIXSYS_Group Limits, shown in Figure 4.4, where the thermal power plants taking
role in different group-limitations are defined;

• FIXSYS_Additions and Retirements, shown in Figure 4.5, where the unit additions
and retirements for thermal power plants are entered/modified;

• FIXSYS_Hydro Plants, shown in Figure 4.6, where detailed data on existing and
decided hydro power plants can be entered/modified;

• FIXSYS Pump Storage, shown in Figure 4.7, where detailed data on existing and
decided pumped-storage plants can be entered/modified.

45
In the window pops up from the left-side of the FIXSYS_Emissions screen (Fig. 4.3) there is
the list of all FIXSYS thermal power plants. One can designate the plants involved in real
emissions of a pollutant as follows:

• select one of the two pollutants listed on the top of the screen;

• indicate the number of plants involved in real emissions of that pollutant;

• highlight a specific plant and copy it from the general left-side list to the right-side list
by clicking the right arrow control; finally, the number of plants in the right-side list
must equal the previously indicated number of plants involved in real emissions.

One can also remove a plant from the right-side list by highlighting it and clicking the left
arrow control.

Figure 4.3. FIXSYS emissions screen.

Depending on the total number of group-limitations indicated in FIXSYS_Input main screen,

a number of buttons: L1, L2,…, L5 will be active in screen FIXSYS_Group Limits (Fig.
4.4). To set the input data for a group-limitation one proceed as follows:

• highlight the button Li assigned to the respective group-limitation;

• enter the type of limitation according to the right-side list of group-limitations;

• enter the number of plants taking part in the limitation;

• enter the annual value of the limit in the suitable unit (kTon, Tcal or GWh) of each
type of limitation; it should be mentioned that this limit refers also to the VARSYS
power plants taking part in the same limitation; by clicking Period Distribution
button one advance to a separate screen where the annual limit can be distributed by
periods of the year according to period fractions entered in this screen (see Section
12.1.5 for details on default values);

• highlight and copy plants involved in group-limitation from the general left-side list to
the right-side list using the right arrow control; finally, the number of plants in the
right-side list must equal the number previously indicated of plants taking role in the
limitation.

46
 Figure 4.4. FIXSYS group-limitations screen.

The FIXSYS_Additions and Retirements screen (Fig. 4.5) represents a matrix of FIXSYS
power plants as rows and years of study period as columns. The user indicates for the suitable
power plant and year: “+” and the number of units to be added or “-“ and the number of units
to be retired

Figure 4.5. FIXSYS additions and retirements screen.

In FIXSYS module the existing and decided hydroelectric projects are described individually
by the following technical and economic parameters:

• installed capacity (MW);

• energy storage capacity (GWh);

• first year of operation;

• inflow energy (GWh) by hydro-condition and period of the year;

• minimum generation in base (GWh) by hydro-condition and period of the year to

supply downstream water requirements;
• available capacity (MW) by hydro-condition and period of the year.

47
Using these input characteristics of the hydro project, FIXSYS module calculates the base and
peak capacities and energies, as well as its mode of operation in each period and for each
hydro-condition. The algorithm permits treating hydro projects of following operation types:
run-of-the-river, as well as daily, weekly and seasonal regulation [see Ref.13, Volume II:
Appendices].
The hydroelectric projects must be classified by the user in one of the two hydro power plant
types: A and B, for which a common value of the operation and maintenance (O&M) cost is
entered for all projects belonging to the same hydro plant type.
Finally, FIXSYS will aggregate all hydroelectric projects of the same type (A or B) into a
unique composite hydro plant. The parameters of each composite plant are updated for the
years when some projects are retired or new decided projects are installed.
In order to avoid mixing very different hydro projects into the same composite hydro plant
type, the user must consider the two criteria when assigning each hydro project to one of the
two hydro plant types: operation type and O&M cost.
The two hydro power plant types, A and B, are defined in the upper-left corner of the
FIXSYS_Hydro Plants screen (Fig. 4.6) by a code name, a description and the O&M cost
($/kW-month). The same plant code names will be used by the program for the hydro plant
types in VARSYS. If one type of composite hydro plant is to be used in FIXSYS and/or
VARSYS, the corresponding input fields must contain the plant code name and description, as
this information is required by module 7 (REPROBAT) for writing the report of the study.

Figure 4.6. Input data for FIXSYS hydro projects.

The code names of FIXSYS hydroelectric projects are entered in the Hydro Plants window
pops up from the left-side of the screen. By clicking the Add Plant button, a new hydropower
project code name can be added to the list. Its technical and economic characteristics
mentioned earlier and, in addition, the code name of the hydroelectric plant type for the
project can be entered in the right-side fields. For parameters that depend on hydro-
conditions, the appropriate hydrology option must be specified, too. Hydro projects can be
removed from the list by highlighting the respective project and clicking Remove Plant
button.
When clicking the Pump Storage Plants button in the upper-right corner of this screen one
advances to the FIXSYS Pump Storage screen (Fig. 4.7). At the upper-left corner of this
screen the list of pumped-storage projects can be defined by adding and removing pumped-
storage projects in the same way as for thermal power plants (Fig. 4.2) and for hydro power
projects (Fig. 4.6).

48
For each pumped-storage project the following data have to be entered:

• installed capacity (MW);

• cycle (pumping/generating) efficiency (%);

• fixed operation and maintenance (O&M) cost ($/kW-month);

• first year of operation;

• pumping capacity (MW) by period;

• generating capacity (MW) by period;

• maximum feasible energy generation (GWh) by period.

Figure 4.7. Input data for FIXSYS pumped-storage projects.

All the previous input data are described in a systematic way in Table 4.1. It should be
mentioned that this table has a double function: to help the user decoding the content of the
[Link] file and to fill in the FIXSYS input data screens. Therefore, the user will find
in Table 4.1 the exact sequence of [Link] records and the sequence of data items in
each record, including some Common Case Data, but also as much information as possible on
the input data to be entered in the input data screens.

Certain input data are checked up by the user interface and by the module program to make
sure that they are within the capabilities of the program and that there are no inconsistencies
between input information. These checks and the corresponding warning and error messages
are described in Section 13.4.

49
Table 4.1. (page 1) Input data for FIXSYS module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment
type1 name

Title of study3. IDENT A60

X
Number of type-Y records to be read next. NID I4 Calculated by the user interface using
the list of fuel types entered in the
FIXSYS_Input screen. Maximum =
Thermal plant fuel types4 (FIXSYS_Input screen)

Fuel type number (0 to 9). IDNUM I4 If fuel type numbers are not entered in
ascending order (0 to 9), the program
Y ranks itself the code names and fuel
Code name for this fuel type. IDNAM A4 type descriptions according to the
(cols 6-9) ascending order of fuel type numbers.

Short description of this fuel type. IDTXT5 A20

(cols 11-30)

Composite hydroelectric plants (FIXSYS_Hydro Plants screen)

Code name of the hydroelectric plant type NAMH(1) A4 Must be the same for both FIXSYS
A. (cols 6-9) and VARSYS modules.
Z6
Description of the hydroelectric plant type IDTXTH(1) A20 Required by REPROBAT for writing
5
A. (cols 11-30) the report of the study.

Code name of the hydroelectric plant type NAMH(2) A4 Must be the same for both FIXSYS
B. (cols 6-9) and VARSYS modules.
Z6
Description of the hydroelectric plant type IDTXTH(2) A20 Required by REPROBAT for writing
5
B. (cols 11-30) the report of the study.

General information for the study (Common Case Data and FIXSYS_Hydro Plants screens)

First year of study3. FIRSTYR I4 Same as in Common Case Data

screen.

Number of periods per year3. NPER I4 Same as in Common Case Data

screen.

Number of thermal plants (maximum 75) NTHPL I4 Calculated by the user interface using
of multiple units. the list of thermal plants entered in
the FIXSYS_Input screen.
Number of hydro-conditions3. NHC I4 Same as in Common Case Data
screen. Blank if hydro is not used in
FIXSYS.
Code name of the hydroelectric plant type NAMH(1) A4 Blank if hydro is not used in
A. A (cols 19-22) FIXSYS.

Fixed operating and maintenance (O&M) OMH(1) F6 Blank if hydro is not used in
costs of hydroelectric plant type A ($/kW- FIXSYS.
month).
Code name of the hydroelectric plant type NAMH(2) A4 Blank if hydro is not used in
B. (cols 31- FIXSYS.
34)
Fixed operating and maintenance (O&M) OMH(2) F6 Blank if hydro is not used in
costs of hydroelectric plant type B ($/kW- FIXSYS.
month).
Probability of hydro-conditions3 PROBH 5F6 Same as in Common Case Data
screen. Blank if hydro is not used in
FIXSYS.

50
Table 4.1. (page 2) Input data for FIXSYS module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment
type1 name
Characteristics of thermal plants (FIXSYS_Input screen)
Code name for the thermal power MAME A4 Maximum = 75.
station.
Number of identical units in the power NSETS I3
station at start of study.
Minimum operating level of each unit MWB F5
(MW).
Maximum unit generating capacity MWC F5
(MW).
Heat rate at minimum operating level BHRT F7
(kcal/kWh).
Average incremental heat rate between B CRMHRT F7
minimum and maximum operating
levels (kcal/kWh).
Domestic fuel costs (¢/106 kcal). FCST F5
6
Foreign fuel costs (¢/10 kcal). FCSTF F5
Plant type number (0,1,2, … ,9). NTYPE I3
Unit spinning reserve as % of MWC. ISPIN I2 Should de defined consistently with
definitions of plant capacity blocks if
the loading order is to be calculated by
MERSIM (see Table 7.1).
Unit equivalent forced outage rate (%). FOR F5
Number of days per year required for MAINT I3
scheduled maintenance of each unit.
Maintenance class size (MW). MAINCL F5
Fixed component of non-fuel operation OMA F5 It is assumed to be a domestic cost.
and maintenance cost ($/kW-month) of
each unit. (cols 66-70)
Variable component of non-fuel OMB F5 It is assumed to be a domestic cost.
operation and maintenance cost
($/MWh) of each unit. (cols 71-75)
Heat value of the fuel used by plant, HEATVALU F10
measuring the heat equivalent of 1 kg
fuel used (kcal/kg).
Emission factor of the first pollutant Ba POLLUT(1) F10
(default: SO2), the ratio of emitted
pollutant and fuel used in plant (%).
Emission factor of the second pollutant POLLUT(2) F10
(default: NOx), the ratio of emitted
pollutant and fuel used in plant (%).

51
Table 4.1. (page 3) Input data for FIXSYS module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment
type1 name
Group-limitations, Penalty factors when determining the optimal mix of strategies, Emissions (FIXSYS_Input and
FIXSYS-Group Limits screens)
Number of group- NGROUPLM I2 Maximum = 5; If = 0: group limits not active in
limitations. FIXSYS and VARSYS.
Index for change of both IPNLT I2 =1 content of next two fields in [Link] file
default penalty factors3. replaces default;
=0 content of next two fields in [Link] file
ignored.
Penalty factor for the loss- PNLTLOLP F10 Default = 0.0;
of-load probability. α in the model description (see Section 12.1.2).
C
Penalty factor for unserved PNLTENS F10 Default = 1.0;
energy. β in the model description (see Section 12.1.2).
Name of the first emitted EMISNAME(1) A3 The default name is: SO2.
pollutant. (cols 26-28)

Name of the second EMISNAME(2) A3 The default name is: NOx.

emitted pollutant. (cols 30-32)

Index number, defining MEASIND(N) 5I2 "1" indicates that the corresponding limit concerns
the type of limit used, N = the fuel used for energy generation, the unit is
1,5. kT;
"2" indicates that the emitted EMISNAME(1) is
limited, the unit is kT;
"3" indicates that the emitted EMISNAME(2) is
limited, the unit is kT;
"4" same as “1”, but the fuel limit expressed in
Tcal;
"5" indicates that the generation is directly
limited, the unit is GWh.
Real emissions (FIXSYS_Emissions screen)
Number of plants taking Da NPLANTSE(I) I4 If = 0 (not active), if = NTHPL: all thermal plants in
role in real emission I, I = FIXSYS; in both cases no type-Db record required.
1,2.

Index of plant taking role Db PLANTINDE 20I4 Calculated by the interface using the list of plants
in the real emission I, I = (I,K) taking role in real emission I entered by the user in
1,2 and K = 1,..., FIXSYS_Emissions screen.
NPLANTSE(I). As many plant indices as the value of
NPLANTSE(I).

Group-limitations for thermal plants (FIXSYS_Group Limits screen)

Number of plants taking NPLANTSGL I4 If = 0: this group limit is only active in VARSYS; if
role in the limitation N. (N) = NTHPL: all thermal plants in FIXSYS; in both
cases no type-Eb record required.
Index of individual period INDIV(N) I4 = 0 (default) GRLRAT ignored;
group limits3. = 1 distribute GRLIMIT with GRLRAT.
Annual value of limit. Ea GRLIMIT(N) F10 Measured in kT, kT, kT, Tcal or GWh, depending on
the above values of the variable MEASIND;
Refers also to VARSYS power plants taking role in
the same limitation.
Period distribution of GRLRAT(N,J) 12F5 Ratio of GRLIMIT(N) for J=1,NPER. See Section
annual value of limit. 12.1.5 for details on default values.
Index of plant taking role Eb PLANTINDGL 20I4 Calculated by the interface using the list of plants
in the limitation N, for (N,K) taking role in limitation N entered by the user in
K=1,...,NPLANTSGL(N) FIXSYS_Group Limits screen.
and N=1,...,NGROUPLM. As many plant indices as the value of
NPLANTSGL(N).

52
Table 4.1. (page 4) Input data for FIXSYS module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment
type1 name
Index numbers
Index number telling the computer what 1 INDEX I4 “1” means process current year data
to do next3. and proceed to read data for next
year;
“2” means hydro project data follow
(type-2a and type-2b records);
“3” means one type-3 record
follows;
“4” indicates that description of
pumped-storage project follows
(type 4a and 4b records).

Additions and retirements of thermal power units (FIXSYS Additions and Retirements screen)
Number of the thermal plant in which NS I4 Max. number of additions and
one or more units are to be added or 3 retirements for all plants and all years
retired. = 500 (REPROBAT limitation).
Number of units to be either added (+) NA I4 Maximum = 99 (REPROBAT
or retired (-) in each plant in each year. limitation).
Hydroelectric projects (FIXSYS Hydro Plants screen)
Name of the hydroelectric project. NAMEP A4 Maximum 30 projects for each of the
two hydroelectric plant types.
Code name of the hydroelectric plant NAMET A4 Must be equal to NAMH(1) or
type for the hydro project. NAMH(2).
2a
(cols 9-12)
Installed capacity (MW) of the hydro HMW F6 A negative value is used for
project. retirements.
The fictitious project name used to
indicate the retirement of an older
project is accounted as a normal
project in the total number of projects
of the respective hydro plant type.
Energy storage capacity (GWh) of the PV F6
hydro project.
First year of operation of the hydro - HYDYR I4 Not included in [Link] file
project. but all the other data for the project
are listed in [Link] file in this
year.
Warning: If HYDYR < First year of
study (FIRSTYR), the project
NAMEP will be deleted by the
interface from the list of hydro
projects of the case.
Inflow energy (GWh) of the hydro EA F5 One record (with all hydro-
project by period and hydro-condition. conditions) per period for each
project.
2b
Minimum generation in base (GWh) of EMIN F5
the hydro project by period and hydro-
condition to supply downstream water
requirements.
Available capacity (MW) of the hydro HMWC F5
project by period and hydro-condition.

53
Table 4.1. (page 5) Input data for FIXSYS module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format Comment
type1 name 2

Pumped-storage projects (FIXSYS Pump Storage screen)

Code name of the pumped-storage NAMPS A4 Maximum = 30 projects.
project.
(cols 3-
6)
4a
Installed capacity (MW) of the CIPS F6 A negative value is used for
pumped-storage project. retirements.
Cycle efficiency of the pumped- EFPS F6 0<EFPS<100.
storage project (%).
Fixed operating and maintenance OMPS F6
cost of the pumped-storage project
($/kW-month).
First year of operation of the - PSYR I4 Not included in [Link] file
pumped-storage project. but all the other data for the project
are listed in [Link] file in
this year.
Warning: If PSYR < First year of
study (FIRSTYR), the project
NAMPS will be deleted by the
interface from the list of pumped-
storage projects of the case.
Pumping capacity (MW) of pumped- CBPS F5
storage project by period.
Generating capacity (MW) of 4b CCPS F5
pumped-storage project by period.
Maximum feasible energy CEPS F5
generation (GWh) of pumped-
storage project by period.

Notes to Table 4.1

1. Relevant only for decoding the content of [Link] file but not for filling in input data screens.
2. See Section 2.6 for Format description.
3. Not entered by the user in the current module. Handled by the interface.
4. Fuel types defined here are to be used for the thermal plants from both FIXSYS and VARSYS modules.
5. If IDTXTH starts with 4 blanks, the program replaces it by “NOT APPLICABLE”.
6. One record for each hydroelectric plant type; first hydro type A, second hydro type B, obligatory.

4.3. Sample problem

4.3.1. Input data

Figure 4.8 shows the complete listing of the input data [Link] file, created by the
Windows interface using the data entered by the user in the various FIXSYS screens (Figures
4.2 to 4.7) and in the Common Case Data screen (Fig. 2.12). This data file is used for
executing the FIXSYS for the sample problem. The contents of this file are described in the
following paragraphs.

The first input data line on page 1 of Fig. 4.8 is a record containing in columns 1-60 the title
of the study (the same as the name of the active case) and in column 64 the number NID of

54
fuel types calculated by the user interface using the input data on fuel types entered in
FIXSYS_Input screen (Fig. 4.2). This number tells to the program the number of records
relating to fuel types to be read next (7 in this case). The same comments made in Section
3.3.1 for the title of the study for LOADSY module are valid also for FIXSYS.

Lines 2 to 8 are the group of type-Y records necessary to describe the fuel types used by the
thermal plants of FIXSYS and/or VARSYS (one record for each fuel type even if one or more
of the fuel types are not used in FIXSYS but are associated to plants that will be described in
VARSYS). In each record the respective fuel is assigned a code number, a code name and a
description. Regarding the code numbers, only values 0, 1, 2, ...,9 can be assigned, preferably
in sequence, to any type of fuel (ten in total) used by the thermal plants of FIXSYS and/or
VARSYS. If fuel type code numbers are not entered in sequence (0 to 9), the program ranks
itself the code names and fuel type descriptions according to the ascending order of fuel type
code numbers.

Modules 5, 6, and 7 of WASP-IV can handle up to thirteen "fuel" types, with the additional
two being the composite hydro plant types, and one for composite pumped-storage projects, if
they are specified in FIXSYS and/or VARSYS. The code numbers of the composite hydro
plants (and pumped-storage projects) are assigned automatically by the program so that it is
not necessary to give these code numbers in FIXSYS or VARSYS (see description of input
data lines 9 and 10 below).

In the sample problem the code number, code name and description of thermal fuel types are
as follows:

Code Number Code name Description

0 NUCL Nuclear Plants

1 LIG1 Lignite-1 Plants
2 LIG2 Lignite-2 Plants
3 COAL Coal Plants
4 FOIL Oil Plants
5 GTGO Gas Turbines Gas-oil
6 NGAS Natural Gas Plants
Lines 9 and 10 in Fig. 4.8 are two type-Z records reflecting the code name and description of
each hydroelectric plant type used in FIXSYS and/or VARSYS (in our sample problem the
two composite hydro plants are used in both modules). The same code names are used when
describing the hydro plant types in VARSYS. The code name and description of the two
composite hydro plants used for our sample problem are as follows:
Code Name Description
HYD1 Hydro Plants Group 1
HYD2 Hydro Plants Group 2

55
DEMOCASE: CASE STUDY FOR THE WASP-IV USERS' MANUAL 7
0 NUCL NUCLEAR PLANTS
1 LIG1 LIGNITE-1 PLANTS
2 LIG2 LIGNITE-2 PLANTS
3 COAL COAL PLANTS
4 FOIL OIL PLANTS
5 GTGO GAS TURBINES GAS-OIL
6 NGAS NATURAL GAS PLANTS
HYD1 HYDRO PLANTS GROUP 1
HYD2 HYDRO PLANTS GROUP 2
1998 4 6 3 HYD1 .55 HYD2 .55 .45 .3 .25
FLG1 4 150 270. 3300. 2850. 600. 0. 110 10. 56 280. 4.06 4.9
1800.0 2.5 1.0 heat values and polluting % for the plants}
FLG2 9 150 276. 2900. 2550. 495. 0. 210 8.9 56 280. 1.91 2.0
1800.0 2.5 1.0 {heat values and polluting % for the plants}
FCOA 1 400. 580. 2800. 2300. 800. 0. 310 8.0 48 600. 2.92 5.0
6000.0 1.0 2.0
FOIL 7 80. 145. 2450. 2150. 0. 833. 410 7.3 42 140. 4.57 1.6
10000.0 1.0 3.0
F-GT 4 50. 50. 3300. 3300. 420. 0. 50 6.0 42 50. 8.35 1.6
10000.0 0.5 0.5
F-CC 1 87. 174. 2048. 2048. 0.1266. 60 15. 28 180. 2.1 5.0
11000.0 0.0 0.5
40 0.0 1.0 SO2 Nox 1 2 3 1 0 {ngrouplm, ipnlt, pnlt-lolp, -ens, emisname, measindx}
6 {real emis.1: number of plants involved}
6 {real emis.1: number of plants involved}
1 0 10000. { 1 plant involved in group limit # 1}
8
5 0 600. { 5 plants involved in group limit # 2}
3 4 5 6 7
6 0 1000. { 6 plants involved in group limit # 3}
2 0 20000. { 2 plants involved in group limit # 4}
3 4
2
FHY1 HYD1 1250. 2000.
1200. 460. 850. 950. 470. 700. 1450. 440. 900.
1250. 460. 860. 1000. 470. 720. 1500. 440. 950.
1350. 460. 890. 1100. 470. 740. 1600. 440. 1000.
1400. 460. 920. 1200. 470. 780. 1700. 440. 1250.
2
FHY2 HYD1 100. 10. 4
50.9 0. 85. 41.8 0. 75. 60.1 0. 90.
50.9 0. 85. 41.8 0. 75. 60.1 0. 90.
50.9 0. 85. 41.8 0. 75. 60.1 0. 90.
50.9 0. 85. 41.8 0. 75. 60.1 0. 90.
2
FHY3 HYD1 300. 168 .5
84.1 0. 240. 73.2 0. 220. 110. 0. 260.
84.1 0. 240. 73.2 0. 220. 110. 0. 260.
84.1 0. 240. 73.2 0. 220. 110. 0. 260.
84.1 0. 240. 73.2 0. 220. 110. 0. 260.
2
FHY4 HYD2 66.4 40.7
25.2 0. 62. 12.1 0. 50. 38.2 0. 66.
25.2 0. 62. 12.1 0. 50. 38.2 0. 66.
25.2 0. 62. 12.1 0. 50. 38.2 0. 66.
25.2 0. 62. 12.1 0. 50. 38.2 0. 66.
2
FHY5 HYD2 140. 102.
76.9 0. 125. 57.8 0. 110. 95.9 0. 140.
76.9 0. 125. 57.8 0. 110. 95.9 0. 140.
76.9 0. 125. 57.8 0. 110. 95.9 0. 140.
76.9 0. 125. 57.8 0. 110. 95.9 0. 140.
1 (END OF YEAR 1998)
3
5 1
1 (END OF YEAR 1999)
2
FHY6 HYD2 180. 92.4
83.7 0. 155. 68.7 0. 140. 103.6 0. 165.
83.7 0. 155. 68.7 0. 140. 103.6 0. 165.
83.7 0. 155. 68.7 0. 140. 103.6 0. 165.
83.7 0. 155. 68.7 0. 140. 103.6 0. 165.
3
8 1
1 (END OF YEAR 2000)
3
8 1
1 (END OF YEAR 2001)
2
FH-1 HYD1-1250. 2000.
1200. 460. 850. 950. 470. 700. 1450. 440. 900.
1250. 460. 860. 1000. 470. 720. 1500. 440. 950.
1350. 460. 890. 1100. 470. 740. 1600. 440. 1000.
1400. 460. 920. 1200. 470. 780. 1700. 440. 1250.

1 (END OF YEAR 2002)

Figure 4.8. (page 1) Wasp-IV FIXSYS input for the sample problem.

56
3
3 -1
1 (END OF YEAR 2003)
1 (END OF YEAR 2004)
1 (END OF YEAR 2005)
3
4 -1
1 (END OF YEAR 2006)
2
FH-2 HYD1 -100. 10.4
50.9 0. 85. 41.8 0. 75. 60.1 0. 90.
50.9 0. 85. 41.8 0. 75. 60.1 0. 90.
50.9 0. 85. 41.8 0. 75. 60.1 0. 90.
50.9 0. 85. 41.8 0. 75. 60.1 0. 90.
1 (END OF YEAR 2007)
1 (END OF YEAR 2008)
3
4 -1
3
7 -1
1 (END OF YEAR 2009)
1 (END OF YEAR 2010)
1 (END OF YEAR 2011)
3
6 -1
1 (END OF YEAR 2012)
3
6 -1
1 (END OF YEAR 2013)
3
3 -1
3
4 -1
1 (END OF YEAR 2014)
1 (END OF YEAR 2015)
1 (END OF YEAR 2016)
1 (END OF YEAR 2017)

Figuer 4.8. (page 2 ) WASP-IV FIXSYS input for the sample problem.

In summary, the code number, code name and description of thermal fuel types, and code
name and description of composite hydro plants to be used for a case study are assigned by
the user.

The next input line in Fig. 4.8 is a type-A record specifying general information for the study,
namely:

• first year of study (1998 in this case);

• number of period per year (4);

• number of thermal plants in FIXSYS (6), determined by the user interface based on
power plant list entered in FIXSYS_Input screen (Fig. 4.2);

• number of hydrological conditions (3);

57
 • code names of the two composite hydroelectric plant types A and B (HYD1 and
HYD2, respectively) and their associated fixed O&M costs (0.55 and 0.55 $/kW-
month, respectively);

• probabilities of hydrological conditions (0.45, 0.3 and 0.25) summing up to 1.0.

Majority of these data was entered in the Common Case Data screen but they are included
by the user interface in [Link] file for the use of the current module.

The following lines are six groups of type-B and type-Ba records describing each thermal
plant. The first (type-B) record contains the main part of parameters for the thermal plant in
the following sequence:

• code name;

• number of identical units in the power plant at start of study;

• minimum operating level of each unit (MW);

• maximum unit generating capacity (MW);

• heat rate at minimum operating level (kcal/kWh);
• average incremental heat rate between minimum and maximum operating levels
(kcal/kWh);
• domestic fuel costs (¢/106 kcal);
• foreign fuel costs (¢/106 kcal);
• fuel (plant) type number (0, 1, 2, …, 9);
• unit spinning reserve (as % of maximum generating capacity);
• unit equivalent forced outage rate (%);
• number of days per year required for scheduled maintenance of each unit;
• maintenance class size (MW);
• fixed component of non-fuel operation and maintenance cost ($/kW-month) of each
unit (it is assumed to be a domestic cost);
• variable component of non-fuel operation and maintenance cost ($/MWh) of each unit
(it is assumed to be a domestic cost);
• while the second (type-Ba) record includes the following parameters:
• heat value of the fuel used by plant (kcal/kg);
• emission factor for the first pollutant (%);

• emission factor for the second pollutant (%).

The next line is a type-C record describing the number of group-limitations (NGROUPLM =
4 in this case), index for changing default penalty factors (IPNLT = 0, not changed in this
case), two values of penalty factors PNLTLOLP and PNLTENS (default values: 0.0 and 1.0
in this case), names of the two types of pollutants, default are SO2 and NOx, and lastly the
index numbers of the type of group limits imposed (1 2 3 1 0 in the present case means that

58
the four group limits imposed are: 1st group limit: fuel limit; 2nd group limit: SO2; 3rd group
limit: NOx, and 4th group limit: fuel limit also, whereas 0 stands for unused 5th group limit).

The next lines are two type-Da records specifying the number of plants involved in real
emissions of the two pollutants described on type_C record (in this case, both type-Da records
contain 6, which means all thermal plants, therefore no type-Db record is needed for both of
the pollutants).

The following lines are as many sets of type-Ea and type-Eb records as the number of group-
limitations specified on type-C record (four sets in this case). Each set contains, on type-Ea
record, the number of plants taking role in this group limit, index for changing period
fractions, the annual value of the limit and period fractions if default is not used; and on type-
Eb record, the index numbers of plants taking role in this group limit. In our sample problem,
the first such set contains 1 0 10000 on type-Ea record and 8 on type-Eb record. This means
that 1 plant is taking role in the first group limit (which is fuel limit), 0 for default period
fractions (period fractions ignored) and 10000 for annual fuel use limit. The plant taking role
in this group limit is F-CC (number 8). Notice that the thermal plant number to be used is the
sequence number increased by two (position 1 and 2 are reserved for the base blocks of the
two hydro types). The second set of type-Ea and -Eb records contain 5 0 600 on type-Ea
record and 3 4 5 6 7 on type-Eb record. This means that 5 plants are taking role in 2nd
group limit (which is defined as SO2 on type-C record), 0 for default period fractions and 600
for annual emission limit of SO2; and plants number 3 (FLG1), 4 (FLG2), 5 (FCOA), 6
(FOIL), 7 (F-GT) are taking role in this limit. The third such set is only type-Ea record,
because all plants in FIXSYS are taking role in the 3rd group limit (which is defined as NOx
on type-C record). It contains 6 0 1000, indicating that 6 plants (all plants) are taking role in
this group limit, 0 for default period fractions and 1000 for annual emission limit on NOx.
The forth set of such records are for the 4th group limit (which is defined as fuel limit on type-
C record). The type-Ea record of this set contains 2 0 20000, which means that 2 plants are
taking role in this group limit, 0 for default period fractions and 20000 as annual limit; the
type-Eb record containing 3 4 indicates that plants number 3 and 4 are the two plants taking
role in this group limit.

After the last set of type-Ea and type-Eb records, a type-1 record must follow to tell the
computer what to do next. In general these records would be interpreted as follows: a type-1
INDEX=1 record means that no more data for current year follows and that the program
should proceed to execute the calculations for the year; an INDEX=2 means that type-2a and
type-2b records follow containing the parameters of a hydroelectric project to be added (or
retired) in the system; INDEX=3 means that one type-3 record follows indicating an addition
(or retirement) of units to (or from) a thermal station; and INDEX=4 means that a pumped-
storage project to be added (or retired) in the system. For the first year of study, however, it is
not recommended to use the retirement option for thermal or hydro/pumped-storage plants.

In Fig. 4.8 the first type-1 record is with INDEX=2 and the next line is a type-2a record. This
corresponds to hydroelectric project FHY1 of plant type code name HYD1, installed capacity
1250. (MW) and energy storage capacity 2000. (GWh). The code name on this line tells the
computer that this project is of type Hydro Plants Group 1. The subsequent lines are four
type-2b records containing information for hydro project FHY1 applicable in each of the four
periods of the year and the three hydrological conditions specified; there is one type-2b record
for each period and each record gives information for all hydrological conditions considered.

59
For example, the first line in this group corresponds to period 1 and contains in columns 1 to
15 the data for the first hydrological condition (1200. GWh of inflow energy; 460. GWh
minimum generation; and 850. MW available capacity); in columns 16-30 the data for the
second hydrological condition (950. GWh inflow energy, 470. GWh minimum generation and
700. MW available capacity); and in columns 31-45 the data for the last hydro-condition
(1450. GWh inflow energy, 440. GWh min. generation and 900. MW available capacity).
Columns 46-75 (reserved in this record type for hydrological conditions 4 and 5) are blank
since only 3 hydro-conditions are defined for our DEMOCASE. In a similar way, the next
three lines specify the data applicable to hydro project FHY1 in periods 2, 3, and 4,
respectively, and for each of the hydro-conditions used.

The next groups of input lines consist of one type-1 INDEX=2 record followed by one type-
2a and four type-2b records. The first two groups provide the data for hydro projects FHY2
and FHY3, respectively, of plant code name HYD1. Similarly, the next two groups are used
to specify the data for projects FHY4 and FHY5 of plant code name HYD2. Each group of
type-2a and type-2b records contains similar information as previously described for hydro
project FHY12.

The next line is the first type-1 INDEX=1 record meaning end of the year, in other words, that
all information for the current year, 1998 in this case, has been completed. As can be seen in
Fig. 4.8, this record (and all type-1 INDEX=1 records) has been identified with the
corresponding year. As stated in Section 3.3 this information is not necessary but has been
introduced for convenience.

The input data for the next year of study follows. These consist of one type-1 INDEX=3
record followed by one type-3 record, indicating that changes are to be made to the number of
units of the thermal plants in FIXSYS in this year (1999). The type-3 record indicates on
columns 1-4 of the record the thermal plant number in the FIXSYS list for which an addition
(+) or a retirement (-) of one or more units is to be made in the current year. For example in
our case, the type-3 record contains 5 in column 4 and 1 in column 8, meaning that one unit is
to be added to plant number 5 (FCOA). The next line is a type-1 INDEX=1 record indicating
the end of data for the current year (1999).

Next is a type-1 record with INDEX=2, followed by a set of type 2a and 2b record for a hydro
project FHY6 of HYD2 type to be added in the year 2000. After this set, there is a type-1
record with INDEX=3 followed by type-3 record for the addition of one unit of thermal plant
number 8 (F-CC), and finally, a type-1 with INDEX=1 record to indicate the end of current
year data. The data for year 2001 show addition of one more unit of thermal plant 8.

In the year 2002 there is a set of type-2a and 2b records for hydro project FH-1. This project
name and the corresponding data set have been used to retire one hydro project already
included in the first year (FHY1), as all the values are same except that the installed capacity
is negative, which means that the hydro project FH-1, in fact the project FHY1, will retire in
this year.

2
It should be emphasized that the ordering of period and hydro-condition data must be consistent
from project to project; otherwise it will lead to wrong calculations of the characteristics of the
composite hydro plants. Also, as mentioned in Section 3.1, the ordering of the periods must be
consistent with the order used in Modules 1 and 3.

60
In year 2003, there is retirement of one unit of thermal plant number 3 (FLG1), indicated with
type-1 record with INDEX=3, followed by type-3 record. The rest of the input data for the
remaining years follows a similar pattern; when no changes are to be made in the composition
of the Fixed System, only one type-1 INDEX=1 record is included in the input for that year,
and when a change is required it is effected through same procedure as explained above for
other years.

4.3.2. Printout

When clicking View FIXSYS Output button in the main screen FIXSYS, the [Link]
file is displayed with WordPad editor or with the alternative editor chosen by the user at the
installation of WASP-IV program. Figure 4.9 illustrates parts of the printout resulting from
execution of the FIXSYS for the sample problem.

Page 1 is the cover page printed by FIXSYS to identify the run. This contains: the title of the
study and a list of the different "fuel" types used in the study, starting with the thermal plants
fuel types followed by the two composite hydroelectric plants and composite pumped-storage
plant. Each list shows the fuel type, code name, and description. At the end of the composite
hydroelectric plants, the output lists the hydro plant cases (mode of operation) considered by
the program. These modes of operation are identified by a KEY (number 1 to 7) and a
description text.

Each time input data for a hydroelectric project (addition or retirement) are read in, the
program calls a special subroutine (HYRUN) to calculate the mode of operation of the project
for each period and hydro-condition defined. This is determined by HYRUN using the given
input data and according to a set of built-in main assumptions [1]. Using this information,
HYRUN distributes the available energy for the hydro project in "base" and "peak" portions
as required for simulation purposes. The resulting base and peak capacities of the hydro
project are included in the FIXSYS printout for the corresponding year, identifying with the
corresponding KEY the mode of operation of the project. This should be checked by the user
to make sure that the project "operates" in the intended mode and that no errors exist in the
input data (particularly for KEY=5 and KEY=6).

Next on the cover page is information about composite pumped-storage plants. If such plants
are specified in the system, the module 5 (MERSIM) of WASP-IV, while simulating the
system, will merge the two composite hydro types into one, renaming it HYDR and will use
the other space for composite pumped-storage plant (PUMP).

The output report continues with a printout of the input data information for the first year of
study (1998), including: general information for the run, thermal plant characteristics,
information related to group-limitations, the changes made to the composite hydroelectric
plants and changes made to the composite pumped-storage plant for this year. This
information has been included in the output to assist the user in checking the correctness of
the inputs. Pages 2 and 3 of Fig. 4.9 illustrate this portion of the output for the case example.

The next piece of information produced as output corresponds to the FIXSYS results for the
year. Pages 4 and 5 of Fig. 4.9 show these results and the Fixed System description for year
1998.

This part of the output starts with the number of periods and hydro-conditions, followed by
the input characteristics and calculated parameters of the thermal plants which are displayed
in a table. Column 1 of the table gives the plant number (starting with 3 and finishing with

61
NTHPL+2, in this case 8; plant NTHPL+3 will be the first of the plants in VARSYS).
Column 2 gives the code name of the thermal plants and Column 3 the number of sets in this
year. Columns 4 to 16 are a repetition of the characteristics of the respective units. Finally, the
last six columns of the table are output values which are actually calculated by FIXSYS; they
give the full load heat rate and the domestic and foreign components of unit generation costs
at base load and full load; the last column (Col. 22) gives the total (domestic plus foreign) unit
generation costs at full load. This value is used by the program to define the economic loading
order, also included in the printout.

Following the table of thermal plants, a summary of thermal capacity by fuel type is included
in the printout (see page 4). In this case, no nuclear plants are included in FIXSYS3, thus a 0
is given for the nuclear fuel; 1080 MW for fuel type 1 (LIG1), 2484 MW of fuel type 2
(LIG2), 580 MW of fuel type 3 (COAL), 1015 MW of fuel type 4 (FOIL), 200 MW of gas
turbines fuel type 5 (GTGO), and 174 MW for fuel type 6 (NGAS). The total thermal capacity
in this year is of 5533 MW.

Next, the printout contains information on real emissions (the number, type and plants
involved for each pollutant), followed by information on group-limitations.

Next, the program reports the economic loading order of the thermal plants used, in ascending
order of total full load generation cost (col. 22 of thermal plant table). This information,
together with the similar one from VARSYS, will be used by CONGEN to calculate the basic
economic loading order of the combined FIXSYS and VARSYS plants that is required by
MERSIM.

Following the thermal plant information are characteristics of hydro projects (if any) of each
plant type (as shown on page 5 of Fig. 4.9). In this case hydro type A (code name HYD1)
with operation and maintenance costs 0.55 $/kW-month includes 3 projects. For each project,
the printout shows the base and peak capacities (MW), peaking energy (GWh), hours per day
(during working days) in which the plant can provide peaking energy and finally the mode of
operation (KEY) calculated by HYRUN. This information is given for each period and hydro-
condition defined by the user.

Once the calculated information for the individual characteristics of all projects of a hydro
plant type has been reported, the program prints the characteristics (capacities and energies
per period and hydro-condition) of the composite hydro plant. In this case, 3 projects are
composed in hydro plant type A (HYD1) with total installed capacity 1650. MW. The base
and peak capacity, available energy for peaking and total available capacity of the composite
hydro plant are also printed for each period and each hydro-condition. The above values are
calculated as the algebraic sum of the individual values for the hydro projects composed,
retirements being handled as negative capacities and energies. For the composite hydro plant
no KEY of operation type is given since this only applies for individual projects.

Next information on page 5 corresponds to the characteristics of those individual projects

composed in the hydro plant type B (HYD2), followed by the parameters of the composite
hydro plant.

3
The thermal fuel type NUCL, needs to be defined in FIXSYS since it is expected to be used in
VARSYS.

62
A similar output to the one described for year 1998 and shown in pages 2 to 5 of Fig. 4.9 is
produced for each year of the study, starting with the listing of the input data for the
respective year. If no change is to be made to the FIXSYS for the year, the program simply
prints INDEX=1 and then proceeds to print the Fixed System description for the year, but
without repeating the individual characteristics of the hydro projects composed in each plant
type. If a change is made to FIXSYS in the year, the program prints the input data and then
proceeds with the report for the year as above. If the change concerns only thermal additions
or retirements, the new number of sets of the corresponding plant will be printed in column 3
of the table of thermal plants and the summary of thermal capacity is revised accordingly.

If any change is made to the composite hydro plants and/or composite pumped-storage plant
(additions or retirements), the program will print first the corresponding record images along
with any other input data and then the report with the description of the fixed system for the
year. The latter will include the characteristics calculated by the program for the
hydro/pumped-storage project being added or retired, followed by the resulting parameters for
the composite hydro/pumped-storage plant affected.

The FIXSYS printout should be checked with great care to make sure that all reported
numbers are those intended by the user. Each number is to be checked carefully as some
errors will not be identified as such by the WASP code until the CONGEN or MERSIM
modules are run (e.g. inconsistencies between LOADSY and FIXSYS input data), and some
other errors will never be identified by the computer (e.g. the addition or retirement of some
units from the "wrong" plant). At least some internal inconsistencies in FIXSYS input data
will result in interruption of program execution and the printing of an error message in the
output. Some other inconsistencies will result in an error message being printed (without
stopping program execution) to warn the user about the potential sources of errors in his/her
input data. Error and warning messages applicable to FIXSYS are described in Section 4 of
Chapter 13.

63
 WASP COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE

FIXSYS MODULE

CASE STUDY

DEMOCASE: CASE STUDY FOR THE WASP-IV USERS' MANUAL

*************************************************************************************
*.......................................................THERMAL PLANTS............................................................................ *
*.......................................................TYPE NAME DESCRIPTION .......................................................... *
*....................................................... ................................................................................................................. *
*.......................................................0NUCL NUCLEAR PLANTS ............................................................. *
*.......................................................1 LIG1 LIGNITE-1 PLANTS ........................................................... *
*.......................................................2 LIG2 LIGNITE-2 PLANTS ........................................................... *
*.......................................................3 COAL COAL PLANTS ................................................................. *
*.......................................................4 FOIL OIL PLANTS ....................................................................... *
*.......................................................5 GTGO GAS TURBINES GAS-OIL .............................................. *
*.......................................................6 NGAS NATURAL GAS PLANTS................................................ *
*....................................................... ................................................................................................................. *
**************************************************************************************
*.......................................................HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS ............................................................... *
*.......................................................TYPE NAME DESCRIPTION .......................................................... *
*....................................................... ................................................................................................................. *
*.......................................................HYD1 HYDRO PLANTS GROUP 1 .................................................. *
*.......................................................HYD2 HYDRO PLANTS GROUP 2 .................................................. *
*....................................................... ................................................................................................................. *
*.......................................................DENTIFICATION OF HYDROPLANT CASES: .............................. *
*.......................................................KEY DESCRIPTION.............................................................. *
*.......................................................1 RUN OF RIVER-RESERVOIR EMPTY IN LESS THAN 2 HRS .. *
*.......................................................2 DAILY REGULATING RESERVOIR .............................................. *
*.......................................................3 WEEKLY REGULATING RESERVOIR.......................................... *
*.......................................................4 SEASONAL REGULATING RESERVOIR..................................... *
*.......................................................5 INFLOW ENERGY EXCEEDS PLANT GENER. CAPABILITY *
*.......................................................6 MINIMUM REQUIRED ENERGY EXCEEDS INFLOW ENERGY*
*.......................................................7 PLANT OPERATES IN PEAK MORE THAN 5 DAYS/WEEK ... ..*
***************************************************************************************
*.......................................................PUMPED STORAGE PLANTS ............................................................. *
*.......................................................TYPE NAME DESCRIPTION .......................................................... *
*.......................................................PUMP COMPOSITE P-S PLANT....................................................... *
*....................................................... ................................................................................................................. *
*.......................................................FOR SIMULATION OF SYSTEM GENERATION ONLY:................ *
*....................................................... ................................................................................................................. *
*....................................................... - SYSTEM WITHOUT PUMPED STORAGE PLANTS ..................... *
*.......................................................TWO HYDRO TYPES A, B................................................................... *
*....................................................... ................................................................................................................. *
*....................................................... - SYSTEM WITH PUMPED STORAGE PLANTS .......................... *
*.......................................................HYDR COMPOSITE A+B PLANT ...................................................... *
*.......................................................PUMP COMPOSITE P-S PLANT ........................................................ *
*....................................................... ................................................................................................................. *
***************************************************************************************

Figure 4.9. (page 1) FIXSYS printout for the sample problem. Cover page.

64
FIXED SYSTEM INPUT DATA INFORMATION OF YEAR 1998
INIT. [Link] [Link] HYDRO *** HYDRO PLANT TYPES ***PROBABILITY OF HYDROCONDITIONS
YEAR PERIODS PLANTS COND. NAME O&M NAME O&M 1 2 3 4 5
1998 4 6 3 HYD1 0.55 HYD2 0.55 0.450 0.300 0.250 0.000 0.000
HEAT RATE FUEL COSTS S FRCD
NO. MIN. CAP- BASE AVGE CENTS/ P OUTAGE DAYS MAIN O&M O&M
OF LOAD CITY LOAD INCR MILLION KCAL FUEL R RATE SCHL CLAS (FIX) (VAR) HEAT
VALUE EMISSION FACTOR
NAME SETS MW MW KCAL/ KWH DMSTC FORGN TYPE % % MAIN MW $/KWM
$/MWH KCAL/KG WT % OF FUEL

FLG1 4 150 270. 3300. 2850. 600.0 0.0 1 10 10.0 56 280. 4.06 4.90 1800.00 2.50 1.00
FLG2 9 150. 276. 2900. 2550 495.0 0.0 2 10 8.9 56 280. 1.91 2.00 1800.00 250 1.00
FCOA 1 400. 580. 2800. 2300. 800.0 0.0 3 10 8.0 48 600. 2.92 5.00 6000.00 1.00 2.00
FOIL 7 80. 145. 2450. 2150. 0.0 833.0 4 10 7.3 42 140. 4.57 1.60 10000.00 1.00 3.00
F-GT 4 50. 50. 3300. 3300. 420.0 0.0 5 0 6.0 42 50. 8.35 1.60 10000.00 0.50 0.50
F-CC 1 87. 174. 2048. 2048. 0.0 1266.0 6 0 15.0 28 180. 2.10 5.00 11000.00 0.00 0.50

NGROUPLM IPNLT PNLTLOLP PNLTENS EMISNAME MEASIND

4 1 0.000 1.000 SO2 Nox 1 2 3 1

*** REAL EMISSION ***

NPLANTS 6

NPLANTS 6

*** GROUP LIMITATION ***

INDIV GRLIMIT
NPLANTS 1 0 10000.0
PLANTIND 8
INDIV GRLIMIT
NPLANTS 5 0 600.0
PLANTIND 3 4 5 6 7
INDIV GRLIMIT
NPLANTS 6 0 1000.0

INDIV GRLIMIT
NPLANTS 2 0 20000.0
PLANTIND 3 4

Figure 4.9. (page 2) FIXSYS printout for the sample problem. Input information for year1998.

65
INDEX 2
PROJECT 1(NAME: FHY1) OF HYDRO TYPE *** HYD1 *** INSTALLED CAP. 1250. MW REG.
ENERGY: 2000.00 GWH
HYDRO-CONDITION 1 HYDRO-CONDITION 2 HYDRO-CONDITION 3
EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC

1200.0
460.0 850.0 950.0 470.0 700.0 1450.0 440.0 900.0
1250.0
460.0 860.0 1000.0 470.0 720.0 1500.0 440.0 950.0
1350.0
460.0 890.0 1100.0 470.0 740.0 1600.0 440.0 1000.0
1400.0
460.0 920.0 1200.0 470.0 780.0 1700.0 440.0 1250.0
INDEX 2
PROJECT 2 (NAME: FHY2) OF HYDRO TYPE *** HYD1 *** INSTALLED CAP. 100. MW REG.
ENERGY: 10.40 GWH
HYDRO-CONDITION 1 HYDRO-CONDITION 2 HYDRO-CONDITION 3
EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC

50.9
0.0 85.0 41.8 0.0 75.0 60.1 0.0 90.0
50.9
0.0 85.0 41.8 0.0 75.0 60.1 0.0 90.0
50.9
0.0 85.0 41.8 0.0 75.0 60.1 0.0 90.0
50.9
0.0 85.0 41.8 0.0 75.0 60.1 0.0 90.0
INDEX 2
PROJECT 3 (NAME: FHY3) OF HYDRO TYPE *** HYD1 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 300. MW REG.
ENERGY: 168.50 GWH
HYDRO-CONDITION 1 HYDRO-CONDITION 2 HYDRO-CONDITION 3
EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC

84.1 0.0 240.0 73.2 0.0 220.0 110.0 0.0 260.0

84.1 0.0 240.0 73.2 0.0 220.0 110.0 0.0 260.0
84.1 0.0 240.0 73.2 0.0 220.0 110.0 0.0 260.0
84.1 0.0 240.0 73.2 0.0 220.0 110.0 0.0 260.0
INDEX 2
PROJECT 1 (NAME: FHY4) OF HYDRO TYPE *** HYD2 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 66. MW REG.
ENERGY: 40.70 GWH
HYDRO-CONDITION 1 HYDRO-CONDITION 2 HYDRO-CONDITION 3
EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC

25.2
0.0 62.0 12.1 0.0 50.0 38.2 0.0 66.0
25.2
0.0 62.0 12.1 0.0 50.0 38.2 0.0 66.0
25.2
0.0 62.0 12.1 0.0 50.0 38.2 0.0 66.0
25.2
0.0 62.0 12.1 0.0 50.0 38.2 0.0 66.0
INDEX 2
PROJECT 2 (NAME: FHY5) OF HYDRO TYPE *** HYD2 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 140. MW REG.
ENERGY: 102.00 GWH
HYDRO-CONDITION 1 HYDRO-CONDITION 2 HYDRO-CONDITION 3
EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC

76.9 0.0 125.0 57.8 0.0 110.0 95.9 0.0 140.0

76.9 0.0 125.0 57.8 0.0 110.0 95.9 0.0 140.0
76.9 0.0 125.0 57.8 0.0 110.0 95.9 0.0 140.0
76.9 0.0 125.0 57.8 0.0 110.0 95.9 0.0 140.0
INDEX 1

Figure 4.9. (page 3) FIXSYS printout for the sample problem. Input information for year
1998.

66
FIXED SYSTEM OF YEAR 1998 (YEAR NUMBER 1 OF THE STUDY)
4 PERIODS
3 HYDRO CONDITIONS

HEAT RATE FUEL COSTS S FRCD FLD UNIT GENERATION

NO. MIN. CAP- BASE AVGE CENTS/ P OUTAGE DAYS MAIN O&M O&M HEAT RT COSTS ($/MWH)

[Link] LOAD CITY LOAD INCR MILLION KCAL FUEL R RATE SCHL CLAS (FIX) (VAR) KCAL/ BASE BASE FLD FLD
FLD
NO. NAME SETS MW MW KCAL/ KWH DMSTC FORGN TYPE % % MAIN MW $/KWM $/MWH KWH DOM FRGN DOM FRGN
TOT
3 FLG1 4 150. 270. 3300. 2850. 600.0 0.0 1 10 10.0 56 280. 4.06 4.90 3100. 24.7 0.0 23.5 0.0 23.5
4 FLG2 9 150. 276 2900. 2550. 495.0 0.0 2 10 8.9 56 280. 1.91 2.00 2740. 16.4 0.0 15.6 0.0 15.6
5 FCOA 1 400. 580. 2800. 2300. 800.0 0.0 3 10 8.0 48 600. 2.92 5.00 2645. 27.4 0.0 26.2 0.0 26.2
6 FOIL 7 80. 145. 2450. 2150. 0.0 833.0 4 10 7.3 42 140. 4.57 1.60 2316. 1.6 20.4 1.6 19.3 20.9
7 F-GT 4 50. 50. 3300. 3300. 420.0 0.0 5 0 6.0 42 50. 8.35 1.60 3300. 15.5 0.0 15.5 0.0 15.5
8 F-CC 1 87. 174. 2048. 2048. 0.0 1266.0 6 0 15.0 28 180. 2.10 5.00 2048. 5.0 25 9 5.0 25.9
30.9
THERMAL CAPACITY SUMMARY: FUEL DESCRIPTION MW
TYPE
0 NUCLEAR PLANTS 0.
1 LIGNITE-1 PLANTS 1080.
2 LIGNITE-2 PLANTS 2484.
3 COAL PLANTS 580.
4 OIL PLANTS 1015.
5 GAS TURBINES GAS-OIL 200.
6 NATURAL GAS PLANTS 174.
7 NOT APPLICABLE 0.
8 NOT APPLICABLE 0.
9 NOT APPLICABLE 0.
TOTAL 5533.

*** REAL EMISSION ***

NO. TYPE PLANTS INVOLVED (PLANT SEQUENCE NUMBER)

1 SO2 * * * A L L * * *
2 NOx * * * A L L * * *
*** GROUP LIMITATION ***
PENALTY FACTOR : LOLP = 0.000
ENS = 1.000
NO. TYPE MEASIND UNIT LIMIT/YR PERIOD LIMITS
1 FUEL 1 kT 10000.0 DISTRIBUTION / PERIOD CALCULATED
2 SO2 2 kT 600.0 DISTRIBUTION / PERIOD CALCULATED
3 Nox 3 kT 1000.0 DISTRIBUTION / PERIOD CALCULATED
4 FUEL 1 kT 20000.0 DISTRIBUTION / PERIOD CALCULATED
NO. TYPE PLANTS INVOLVED (PLANT SEQUENCE NUMBER)
1 FUEL 8
2 SO2 3 4 5 6 7
3 Nox *** ALL ***
4 FUEL 3 4

ECONOMIC LOADING ORDER DEFINED IN ASCENDING ORDER OF TOTAL FULL LOAD UNIT GENERATION COSTS
7 4 6 3 5 8

Figure 4.9. (page 4) FIXSYS printout for the sample problem. Fixed system description for
year 1998.

67
 FOLLOWING HYDRO PROJECTS ARE OF TYPE *** HYD1 *** O&M (FIX) = 0.55 $/KW-MONTH
************************************************************************************************************************
PROJECT 1 INSTALLED CAP.: 1250. MW REG. ENERGY: 2000.00 GWH

HYDRO-CONDITION 1 *HYDRO-CONDITION 2* HYDRO-CONDITION 3*

BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY
MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR

210. 640. 740. 17.7 4 215. 485. 480. 15.2 4 201. 699. 1010. 22.2 4
210. 650. 790. 18.6 4 215. 505. 530. 16.1 4 201. 749. 1060. 21.7 4
210. 680. 890. 20.1 4 215. 525. 630. 18.4 4 201. 799. 1160. 22.3 4
210. 710. 940. 20.3 4 215. 565. 730. 19.8 4 201. 1049. 1260. 18.4 4

PROJECT 2 INSTALLED CAP.: 100. MW REG. ENERGY: 10.40 GWH

HYDRO-CONDITION 1 *HYDRO-CONDITION 2* HYDRO-CONDITION 3*
BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY
MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR

0. 85. 51. 9.2 4 0 75. 42. 8.6 4 0. 90. 60. 10.2 4

0. 85. 51. 9.2 4 0. 75. 42. 8.6 4 0. 90. 60. 10.2 4
0. 85. 51. 9.2 4 0. 75. 42. 8.6 4 0. 90. 60. 10.2 4
0. 85. 51. 9.2 4 0. 75. 42. 8.6 4 0. 90. 60. 10.2 4

PROJECT 3 INSTALLED CAP.: 300. MW REG. ENERGY: 168.50 GWH

HYDRO-CONDITION 1* HYDRO-CONDITION 2* HYDRO-CONDITION 3*

BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY
MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR

0. 240. 84. 5.4 4 0. 220. 73. 5.1 4 0. 260. 110. 6.5 4

0. 240. 84. 5.4 4 0. 220. 73. 5.1 4 0. 260. 110. 6.5 4
0. 240. 84. 5.4 4 0. 220. 73. 5.1 4 0. 260. 110. 6.5 4
0. 240. 84. 5.4 4 0. 220. 73. 5.1 4 0. 260. 110. 6.5 4

3 PROJECTS OMPOSED IN HYDRO TYPE *** HYD1 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 1650. MW
************************************************* ************************

HYDRO-CONDITION 1* HYDRO-CONDITION 2* HYDRO-CONDITION 3*

BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL
MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW

210. 965. 875. 1175. 215. 780. 595. 995. 201. 1049. 1180. 1250.
210. 975. 925. 1185. 215. 800. 645. 1015. 201. 1099. 1230. 1300.
210. 1005. 1025. 1215. 215. 820. 745. 1035. 201. 1149. 1330. 1350.
210. 1035. 1075. 1245. 215. 860. 845. 1075. 201. 1399. 1430. 1600.

FOLLOWING HYDRO PROJECTS ARE OF TYPE *** HYD2 *** O&M (FIX) = 0.55 $/KW-MONTH
************************************************************************************************************************
PROJECT 1 INSTALLED CAP.: 66. MW REG. ENERGY: 40.70 GWH
HYDRO-CONDITION 1 * HYDRO-CONDITION 2 * HYDRO-CONDITION 3 *
BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY
MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR

0. 62. 25. 6.2 4 0. 50. 12. 3.7 4 0. 66. 38. 8.9 4

0. 62. 25. 6.2 4 0. 50. 12. 3.7 4 0. 66. 38. 8.9 4
0. 62. 25. 6.2 4 0. 50. 12. 3.7 4 0. 66. 38. 8.9 4
0. 62. 25. 6.2 4 0. 50. 12. 3.7 4 0. 66. 38. 8.9 4

PROJECT 2 INSTALLED CAP.: 140. MW EG. ENERGY: 102.00 GWH

HYDRO-CONDITION 1* HYDRO-CONDITION 2* HYDRO-CONDITION 3*

BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY
MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR

0. 125. 77. 9.4 4 0. 110. 58. 8.1 4 0. 140. 96. 10.5 4

0. 125. 77. 9.4 4 0. 110. 58. 8.1 4 0. 140. 96. 10.5 4
0. 125. 77. 9.4 4 0. 110. 58. 8.1 4 0. 140. 96. 10.5 4
0. 125. 77. 9.4 4 0. 110 58. 8.1 4 0. 140. 96.1 10.5 4

2 PROJECTS COMPOSED IN HYDRO TYPE *** HYD2 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 206. MW
************************************************* ************************
HYDRO-CONDITION 1 * HYDRO-CONDITION 2 * HYDRO-CONDITION 3 *
BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL
MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW
0. 187. 102. 187. 0. 160. 70. 160. 0. 206. 134. 206.
0. 187. 102. 187. 0. 160. 70. 160. 0. 206. 134. 206.
0. 187. 102. 187. 0. 160. 70. 160. 0. 206. 134. 206.
0. 187. 102. 187 0. 160. 70. 160. 0. 206. 134. 206.
* * * * * * * * * * * * END OF DATA FOR YEAR 1998 * * * * * * * * * * * *

Figure 4.9. (page 5) FIXSYS printout for the sample problem. Fixed system description for
year 1998.

68
 CHAPTER 5. EXECUTION OF VARSYS

To start the execution of VARSYS module the user must click the VARSYS button in the
WASP Modules screen (Fig. 2.11). The VARSYS main screen will be displayed (Figure
5.1). This screen has the following four options:

• Enter/Modify VARSYS Input, to enter or modify data for the module;

• Execute VARSYS, to execute the module, after completing the input data
entering/modifying;

• View VARSYS Output, to view or print the module output;

• Back, to return to the previous screen.

Figure 5.1. Main screen VARSYS.

5.1. Input/output files

Like the FIXSYS module, VARSYS also uses four files, one input file and three output files.
The input file [Link] is created/updated by the Windows interface using the input
data provided by the user in several screens, as described in the next section.
[Link] and [Link] files are meant to store information to be used by
other modules of WASP-IV. The results of the current execution of VARSYS are reported in
[Link] file. This file must be reviewed by the user to confirm successful execution of
this module before proceeding to next modules.

5.2. input Data preparation

When clicking the Enter/Modify VARSYS Input button in the main screen VARSYS, the
input data main screen VARSYS_Input, given in Figure 5.2, is displayed.

In this screen the user can enter/modify the following types of data:

• code names of thermal power plants used as expansion candidates;

• technical and economic characteristics of candidate thermal power plants; or advance

to other input data subsequent screens by clicking the appropriate buttons.

69
 Figure 5.2. VARSYS input data main screen.

The following data items, read in FIXSYS but used also by VARSYS, are shown for the
convenience of the user:

• total number of group-limitations for thermal power plants;

• code names of two pollutants emitted by thermal power plants.

The code names of VARSYS candidate thermal power plants can be entered in the Candidate
Thermal Plants window located in the upper-left corner of the screen. When clicking the
Add Plant button, a new candidate thermal power plant code name can be added to the list
and its technical and economic characteristics can be entered in the Characteristics of
Thermal Plant form. A power plant can be removed from the list by highlighting it and
clicking Remove Plant button. Based on the final format of this list the user interface
calculates the number NTHPLV of candidate thermal plants in VARSYS.

A candidate thermal power plant is described by a set of technical and economic parameters
similar to those used in FIXSYS for the existing power plants, namely:

• minimum operating level of an unit (MW);

• maximum unit generating capacity (MW);

• fuel (plant) type number (0, 1, 2, …, 9);

• heat rate at minimum operating level (kcal/kWh);

• average incremental heat rate between minimum and maximum operating levels
(kcal/kWh);

• unit spinning reserve (as % of maximum generating capacity);

• unit equivalent forced outage rate (%);

• number of days per year required for scheduled maintenance of each unit;

• maintenance class size (MW);

70
 • domestic fuel costs (¢/106 kcal);

• foreign fuel costs (¢/106 kcal);

• fixed component of non-fuel operation and maintenance cost ($/kW-month) of each

unit (it is assumed to be a domestic cost);

• variable component of non-fuel operation and maintenance cost ($/MWh) of each unit
(it is assumed to be a domestic cost);

• heat value of the fuel used by plant, measuring the heat equivalent of 1 kg fuel used
(kcal/kg);

• emission factor of the first pollutant (default: SO2), the ratio of emitted pollutant and
fuel used in plant (%);

• emission factor of the second pollutant (default: NOx), the ratio of emitted pollutant
and fuel used in plant (%).

The only missing parameter is the number of units of each candidate plant, which is the
unknown variable to be determined by the model.

From the same VARSYS_Input main screen, by clicking the suitable buttons, the user can
advance to the following subsequent screens:

• VARSYS_Emissions, shown in Figure 5.3, where the candidate thermal power plants
involved in real emissions of the two pollutants are defined;

• VARSYS_Group Limits, shown in Figure 5.4, where the candidate thermal power
plants taking role in different group-limitations are defined;

• VARSYS_Hydro Plants, shown in Figure 5.5, where detailed data on hydro power
candidates can be entered/modified;

• VARSYS_Pump Storage, shown in Figure 5.6, where detailed data on candidate

pumped-storage plants can be entered/modified.

In the window on the left-side of the VARSYS_Emissions screen (Fig. 5.3) there is the list of
all VARSYS thermal power plants. One can designate the plants involved in real emissions of
a pollutant as follows:

• select one of the two pollutants listed on the top of the screen;

• enter the number of plants involved in real emissions of that pollutant;

• highlight a specific plant from the general left-side list and copy it to the right-side list
by clicking the right arrow control; finally, the number of plants in the right-side list
must equal the number previously indicated of plants involved in real emissions.

• One can also remove a plant from the right-side list by highlighting it and clicking the
left arrow control.

71
 Figure 5.3. VARSYS emissions screen.
Depending on the total number of group-limitations indicated in FIXSYS_Input main screen,
a number of buttons: L1, L2,…, L5 will be active in screen VARSYS_Group Limits (Fig.
5.4). To set the input data for a group-limitation one proceed as follows:
• highlight the button Li assigned to the respective group-limitation;
• enter the type of limitation according to the right-side list of group-limitations;
• enter the number of plants taking part in the limitation;
• highlight and copy plants involved in group-limitation from the general left-side list to
the right-side list using the right arrow control; finally, the number of plants in the
right-side list must equal the number previously indicated of plants taking role in the
limitation.
• One can also remove a plant from the right-side list by highlighting it and clicking the
left arrow control.

Figure 5.4. VARSYS group-limitations screen.

In the upper-left corner of the VARSYS_Hydro Plants screen (Fig. 5.5) are shown the two
hydro power plant types, A and B, with the code names, descriptions and O&M costs
previously defined in FIXSYS. No need for the user to touch them. The code names of
VARSYS hydroelectric candidate projects are entered in the Hydro Plants window on the

72
left-side of the screen. When clicking the Add Plant button, a new hydropower project code
name can be added to the list and its technical and economic characteristics can be entered in
the right-side fields, namely:

• installed capacity (MW);

• energy storage capacity (GWh);

• inflow energy (GWh) by hydro-condition and period of the year;

• minimum generation in base (GWh) by hydro-condition and period of the year to

supply downstream water requirements;

• available capacity (MW) by hydro-condition and period of the year.

Code name of the hydroelectric plant type and first year when the project is available to be
considered as expansion candidate are also entered. For parameters that depend on hydro-
conditions one can select the appropriate hydrology option. Hydro projects can be removed
from the list by highlighting the respective project and clicking Remove Plant button.

Figure 5.5. Input data for VARSYS hydro projects.

When clicking the Pump Storage Plants button in the upper-right corner of the
VARSYS_Hydro Plants screen one advance at VARSYS_Pump Storage screen (Fig. 5.6).
At the upper-left corner of this screen the list of pumped-storage projects can be defined by
adding and removing pumped-storage projects in the same way as for thermal power plants
(Fig. 5.2) and for hydro power projects (Fig. 5.5). For each pumped-storage project the
following data are entered:

• installed capacity (MW);

• cycle (pumping/generating) efficiency (%);

• fixed operation and maintenance (O&M) cost ($/kW-month);

• first year of operation;

• pumping capacity (MW) by period;

73
 • generating capacity (MW) by period;

• maximum feasible energy generation (GWh) by period.

Figure 5.6. Input data for VARSYS pumped-storage projects.

All the previous input data are described in Table 5.1. As already mentioned for FIXSYS
module, the primary function of this table is to describe the content of [Link] file but
also to present the necessary input data to fill in the VARSYS data screens. Therefore, the
user will find in Table 5.1 the exact format of [Link] records, which are composed of
data items entered in different VARSYS screens and even outside VARSYS module (in
Common Case Data and FIXSYS screens).

Certain input data are checked up by the user interface and by the module program to make
sure that they are within the capabilities of the program and that there are no inconsistencies
between input information. These checks and the corresponding warning and error messages
are described in Section 13.5.

74
Table 5.1. (page 1) Input data for VARSYS module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment
type1 name
Title of study3. X IDENT A60

General information for the study (Common Case Data, FIXSYS_Hydro Plants, VARSYS_Input
and VARSYS_Hydro Plants screens)
Number of periods per year3. NPER I4 Same as in Common Case Data
screen.
(cols 5-8)

Number of thermal unit types used NTHPLV I4 Calculated by the user interface
as expansion candidates. using the list of candidate thermal
plants entered in the
VARSYS_Input screen.

Maximum 12, if P-S is not used, or

11, if P-S is used.

Number of hydro-conditions3. NHC I4 Same as in Common Case Data

screen.

Code name of the hydroelectric NAMH(1) A4 Same as in FIXSYS.

plant type A3.
(cols 19-22)

Fixed operating and maintenance OMH(1) F6 Same as in FIXSYS.

(O&M) costs of hydroelectric plant
type A3 ($/kW-month).
A
Code name of the hydroelectric NAMH(2) A4 Same as in FIXSYS.
plant type B3.
(cols 31-34)

Fixed operating and maintenance OMH(2) F6 Same as in FIXSYS.

(O&M) costs of hydroelectric plant
type B3 ($/kW-month).

Probability of hydro-conditions3 PROBH 5F6 Same as in Common Case Data

screen.

Number of candidate hydro projects NUH(1) I3 Calculated by the user interface

of hydro plant type A (maximum using the list of candidate thermal
30). plants entered in the
VARSYS_Hydro Plants screen.

Number of candidate hydro projects NUH(2) I3 Calculated by the user interface

of hydro plant type B (maximum using the list of candidate thermal
30). plants entered in the
VARSYS_Hydro Plants screen.

Number of pumped-storage projects NUPS I3 Calculated by the user interface

used as system candidates using the list of candidate thermal
(maximum 30). plants entered in the
VARSYS_Pump Storage screen.

75
Table 5.1. (page 2) Input data for VARSYS module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment
type1 name
Characteristics of candidate thermal plants (VARSYS_Input screen)
Code name for the thermal unit used NAME A4 Maximum 12 thermal unit
as expansion candidate. types, if P-S is not used, or 11,
if P-S is used.
Minimum operating level (MW). MWB F5

(cols 8-12)
Maximum unit operating level (MW). MWC F5
Heat rate at minimum operating level BHRT F7
(kcal/kWh).
Average incremental heat rate CRMHRT F7
between minimum and maximum
operating levels (kcal/kWh).
B
Domestic fuel costs (¢/106 kcal). FCST F5
6
Foreign fuel costs (¢/10 kcal). FCSTF F5
Plant type number (0,1,2, … ,9). NTYPE I3
Spinning reserve as % of MWC. ISPIN I2 Should de defined consistently
with definitions of plant
capacity blocks if the loading
order is to be calculated by
MERSIM (see Table 7.1).
Equivalent forced outage rate (%). FOR F5
Number of days per year required for MAINT I3
scheduled maintenance.
Maintenance class size (MW). MAINCL F5
Fixed component of non-fuel OMA F5 It is assumed to be a domestic
operation and maintenance cost cost.
($/kW-month). (cols 66-70)
Variable component of non-fuel OMB F5 It is assumed to be a domestic
operation and maintenance cost cost.
($/MWh).
Heat value of the fuel used by plant, HEATVALU F10
measuring the heat equivalent of 1 kg
fuel used (kcal/kg).
Emission factor of the first pollutant Ba POLLUT(1) F10
(default: SO2), the ratio of emitted
pollutant and fuel used in plant (%).
Emission factor of the second POLLUT(2) F10
pollutant (default: NOx), the ratio of
emitted pollutant and fuel used in
plant (%).

76
Table 5.1. (page 3) Input data for VARSYS module of WASP-IV

Input data Record Fortran name Format2 Comment

type1
Pollutant emissions and Group-limitations for thermal plants (FIXSYS_Input, VARSYS_Emissions and
VARSYS_Group Limits screens)
Number of group- NGROUPLM I2 Maximum = 5.
limitations3. Same as in FIXSYS.
If = 0: group limits not active in
FIXSYS and VARSYS.
Name of the first emitted EMISNAME(1) A3 The default name is: SO2.
pollutant3. (cols 26-28) Same as in FIXSYS.
Name of the second EMISNAME(2) A3 The default name is: NOx.
emitted pollutant3. (cols 30-32) Same as in FIXSYS.
C MEASIND(N) 5I2 "6" indicates that the corresponding
Index number, defining
the type of limit used limit concerns the fuel used for
(must be the same as energy generation, the unit is
specified in FIXSYS), kT;
N=1,5. "7" indicates that the emitted
EMISNAME(1) is limited, the
unit is kT;
"8" indicates that the emitted
EMISNAME(2) is limited, the
unit is kT;
"9" indicates that the used heat is
limited, the unit is Tcal;
"10" indicates that the generation is
directly limited, the unit is
GWh.
Number of plants taking Da NPLANTSE(I) I4 If = 0 (not active), if = NTHPLV: all
role in real emission I, I = thermal plants in VARSYS; in both
1,2. cases no type-Db record required.
Index of plant taking role Db PLANTINDE 20I4 Calculated by the interface using the
in the real emission I, I = (I,K) list of plants taking role in real
1,2 and K = 1,..., emission I entered by the user in
NPLANTSE(I). VARSYS_Emissions screen.
As many plant indices as the value of
NPLANTSE(I).

Number of plants taking Ea NPLANTSGL I4 If = 0: this group limit is only active

role in limitation N. (N) in FIXSYS; if = NTHPLV: all
thermal plants in VARSYS; in both
cases no type-Eb record required.
Eb PLANTINDGL 20I4 Calculated by the interface using the list
Index of plant taking role
(N,K) of plants taking role in limitation N
in the limitation N, for entered by the user in VARSYS_Group
K=1,...,NPLANTSGL(N) Limits screen.
and
N=1,...,NGROUPLM. As many plant indices as the value of
NPLANTSGL(N).

77
Table 5.1. (page 4) Input data for VARSYS module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment
type1 name
Candidate hydroelectric plants (FIXSYS_Hydro Plants and VARSYS_Hydro Plants screens)
Name of the hydroelectric project. NAMEP A4 Maximum 30 projects for
each hydro plant type.
(cols 3-6)
Code name of the hydroelectric plant type for 2a NAMET A4 Must be NAMH(1) or
the hydro project3. NAMH(2) from FIXSYS.
(cols 9-12)
Installed capacity (MW) of the hydro project. HMW F6
Energy storage capacity (GWh) of the hydro PV F6
project.
First year the project is available to be JAV I6
considered as expansion candidate.
Inflow energy (GWh) of the hydro project by EA F5 One record (with all hydro-
period and hydro-condition. conditions) per period for
each project.
Minimum generation in base (GWh) of the 2b EMIN F5
hydro project by period and hydro-condition
to supply downstream water requirements.
Available capacity (MW) of the hydro project HMWC F5
by period and hydro-condition.
Candidate pumped-storage projects (VARSYS_Pump Storage screen)
Code name of the pumped-storage project. NAMPS A4 Maximum 30 projects.

(cols 3-6)
Installed capacity (MW) of the pumped- CIPS F6
storage project. 4a
Cycle efficiency of the pumped-storage EFPS F6 0<EFPS<100.
project (%).
Fixed operating and maintenance cost of the OMPS F6
pumped-storage project ($/kW-month).
First year the project is available to be JRAVPS I6
considered as expansion candidate.
Pumping capacity (MW) of pumped-storage CBPS F5
project by period.
Generating capacity (MW) of pumped- 4b CCPS F5
storage project by period.
Maximum feasible energy generation (GWh) CEPS F5
of pumped-storage project by period.

Notes to Table 5.1

1. Relevant only for decoding the content of [Link] file but not for filling in input data screens
2. See Section 2.6 for Format description
3. Not entered by the user in the current module. Handled by the interface.

78
5.3. Sample problem
5.3.1. Input data
Figure 5.7 shows the complete listing of the input data [Link] file, created by the
Windows interface using the data entered by the user in the various VARSYS screens
(Figures 5.2 to 5.6), but also in the Common Case Data screen (Fig. 2.12) and used for
executing the VARSYS run of the sample problem. The content of this file is described in the
following paragraphs.
The first data record in this figure is a record with the title of study. The same comments
made in Section 3.3.1 for the title of study to be used in LOADSY are valid for VARSYS,
too.
The second input line in Fig. 5.7 is a type-A record specifying general information for the
VARSYS run, namely:
• number of period per year (4 in this case);
• number of thermal plants in VARSYS (i.e. the number of type-B and type-Ba records
to be read next) which are to be used as expansion candidates (5 here), determined by
the user interface based on the list entered in VARSYS_Input screen (Fig. 5.2);
• number of hydrological conditions (3);
• code names of the two composite hydroelectric plants (HYD1 and HYD2,
respectively) and their associated fixed O&M cost (0.55 and 0.55 $/kW-month,
respectively);
• probabilities of hydrological conditions (0.45, 0.30 and 0.25) summing up to 1.0;
• number of candidate hydro projects of the two hydro types (2 and 2 respectively for
hydro types A and B);
• number of candidate pumped-storage projects (0 in this case).
Some of these data were entered in the Common Case Data and FIXSYS screens.
This type-A record is similar to the type-A data record of FIXSYS except that in VARSYS
columns 1-4 are left blank and columns 71-79 contain number of hydro projects of type A and
B and pumped-storage projects to be considered as expansion candidates. Although FIXSYS
and VARSYS are independent, the input information given in the respective type-A record
must be consistent; otherwise it will lead to interruption of execution of any of the subsequent
modules. For example, the number of periods per year must be the same in both modules and
in the respective type-A data records. Concerning the use of hydro plant types, it must be
emphasized that when a type of hydro plant is to be used in both, FIXSYS and VARSYS, its
code name and corresponding fixed O&M costs must be equal in both modules. Finally, the
number and order of the periods and hydro-conditions must be consistent with the input data
to LOADSY and FIXSYS (see Sections 3.2 and 4.2). The user interface creates/modifies the
.DAT files for all modules in a consistent manner but if the user interferes in this process
he/she can break this consistency.
The next lines in Fig. 5.7 are five groups of type-B and type-Ba records describing each
thermal plant candidate for system expansion by its code name and 16 parameters (13
parameters on type-B record and 3 parameter on type-Ba record). These type-B and type-Ba
records are similar to the type-B and type-Ba data records of FIXSYS, except for cols. 5-7
which are left blank in VARSYS (i.e. no number of sets is not specified for the expansion
candidates).

79
The thermal expansion candidates considered for the sample problem are: 600 MW coal-fired
plants (V-CC), 280 MW lignite-1 based plants (VLG1), 280 MW lignite-2 based plants
(VLG2), 580 MW imported coal based power plants, and 600 MW nuclear plants (NUCL).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMOCASE: CASE STUDY FOR THE WASP-IV USERS' MANUAL
4 5 3 HYD1 .55 HYD2 .55 .45 .3 .25 2 2 0
V-CC 300. 600. 1950. 1950. 0.1200. 6 0 10. 28 600. 2.1 4.
11000.0 0.0 0.5
VLG1 150. 280. 3100. 2700. 710. 0. 110 10. 56 280. 2.7 6.
1800.0 2.5 1.0 {heat values and polluting % for the plants}
VLG2 150. 280. 3000. 2600.1100. 0. 210 10. 56 280. 2.7 6.
1800.0 2.5 1.0 {heat values and polluting % for the plants}
VCOA 400. 580. 2600. 2200. 0. 800. 310 8. 48 600. 2.92 5.
6000.0 1.0 2.0
NUCL 300. 600. 2600. 2340. 0. 194. 0 7 10.0 42 600. 2.50 .50
0 0 0
4 SO2 NOx 1 2 3 1 0 {ngrouplm, emisname, measindx}
4 {real emis.1: number of plants involved}
1 2 3 4
4 {real emis.1: number of plants involved}
1 2 3 4
1
3 {plant indices involved}
3
2 3 4 {plant indices involved}
4
1 2 3 4 {plant indices involved}
0
VHY2 HYD1 200. 100. 2003
70.3 0. 160. 42.6 0. 140. 98. 0. 200.
70.3 0. 160. 42.6 0. 140. 98. 0. 200.
70.3 0. 160. 42.6 0. 140. 98. 0. 200.
70.3 0. 160. 42.6 0. 140. 98. 0. 200.
VHY3 HYD1 650. 300. 2004
620. 300. 490. 560. 400. 490. 700. 200. 550.
720. 200. 520. 600. 300. 515. 790. 100. 560.
820. 150. 550. 660. 100. 530. 950. 50. 650.
760. 200. 540. 620. 300. 525. 850. 100. 600.
VHY1 HYD2 120. 157. 2002
67.5 0. 100. 51.4 0. 80. 83.7 0. 120.
67.5 0. 100. 51.4 0. 80. 83.7 0. 120.
67.5 0. 100. 51.4 0. 80. 83.7 0. 120.
67.5 0. 100. 51.4 0. 80. 83.7 0. 120.
VHY4 HYD2 193.4 65. 2005
88.6 0. 120. 63. 0. 100.114.3 0. 140.
88.6 0. 120. 63. 0. 100.114.3 0. 140.
88.6 0. 120. 63. 0. 100.114.3 0. 140.
88.6 0. 120. 63. 0. 100.114.3 0. 140.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 5.7. WASP IV VARSYS input data for the sample problem.

After the last group of type-B and type-Ba records, the next line is a type-C record describing
the number of group-limitations (NGROUPLM = 4 in this case), the names of pollutants (SO2
and NOx) and the index numbers of the type of group limits imposed (1 2 3 1 0 in the present
case means that the four group limits imposed are: 1st group limit: fuel limit, 2nd group limit:
SO2, 3rd group limit: NOx, and 4th group limit: fuel limit also, whereas 0 stands for unused
5th group limit). The number of group-limitations and the index numbers of the type of group
limits should be the same as specified in FIXSYS.

The next lines are two sets of type-Da and type-Db records; first specifying number of plants
involved in real emission of 1st pollutant (described on type-C record), and the index numbers
of corresponding plants, and then same information for the 2nd pollutant. If no plant in the
VARSYS is involved in real emission of any one or both pollutants then the corresponding

80
type-Da record will contain zero and no type-Db record will follow, and in case all plants are
involved, then, again, the type-Db record will be omitted.
The following lines are as many sets of type-Ea and type-Eb records as the number of group-
limitations specified on type-C record (four sets in this case). Each set contains, on type-Ea
record the number of plants taking role in this group limit, and on type-Eb record the index
numbers of plants taking role in this group limit. In our sample problem, the first such set
contains 1 on type-Ea record (i.e. one plant is taking role in the 1st group-limitation) and 3 on
type-Eb record (i.e. plant number 3 is the plant for this group limit). Again, if no plant in
VARSYS is involved in any one of the group limits then the corresponding type-Ea record
will contain zero and no type-Eb record will follow (as is the case for 4th group-limitation in
this sample problem).
It may be noted that type-Ea records of VARSYS are similar to those for FIXSYS with some
differences: on type-Ea records of VARSYS only the number of plants taking role in the
group limit are specified, the rest of the record is blank (variables relating to the annual value
of limit and to its period distribution were defined in FIXSYS for both FIXSYS and VARSYS
plants).
After the last set of type-Ea and type-Eb records, the subsequent lines in Fig. 5.7 form the
group required to define hydroelectric projects used as expansion candidate. The first line in
this group is a type-2a record giving the name (VHY1), plant code name (HYD2), installed
capacity (120. MW), the energy regulation capacity (157. GWh) and the first year the hydro
project VHY1 is available to be considered as expansion candidate (2002 in this case). This
type-2a record is similar to type-2a of FIXSYS, except that in VARSYS the year from which
the hydro project can be considered as candidate plant is also specified. The next lines of
input are four type-2b records which contain the information for project VHY1 applicable for
each period in each hydrological condition.
There is one record type-2b per period and each one gives the data for all hydro-conditions:
columns 1 to 15 for hydro-condition 1; 16 to 30 for hydro-condition 2; and 31 to 45 for hydro-
condition 3. No information is given for hydro-conditions 4 and 5 (columns 46-60 and 61-75)
since only 3 hydro-conditions were selected for this sample problem.
As many groups of type-2a and 2b records are to be used as the number of hydro candidates
(in our example, there are 4 hydro candidates and hence 4 groups of type-2a and type-2b
records are included).
After description of hydro projects, the next would be pumped-storage candidates in
VARSYS. These are described by a group consisting of one type-4a record and as many type-
4b records as the number of periods. In this sample problem there is no pumped-storage
project as an expansion candidate.
5.3.2. Printout
When clicking View VARSYS Output button in the main screen VARSYS, the
[Link] file is displayed with WordPad editor or with the alternative editor chosen by
the user at the installation of WASP-IV program. Figure 5.8 shows the printed output
resulting from execution of the VARSYS module for the sample problem.
Page 1of Fig. 5.8 is the cover page printed by VARSYS, giving the title of the study.
Page 2 of Fig. 5.8 shows the list of the input data used in the run. This include in sequence:
the general information for the case study, the thermal plant characteristics and the
parameters describing the hydro projects used as expansion candidates (there is no pumped-

81
storage project in this case, if such projects are also included in the input as candidates, these
will be described after hydro projects).

The next pages of the output list the description of the Variable System which will be used by
Modules 4 to 7 of WASP-IV. Page 3 contains first, the number of periods per year (4) and
number of hydro-conditions (3); then the characteristics of the candidate thermal plants are
displayed following a similar format to the one used by FIXSYS (see page 4 of Fig. 4.9),
except that in VARSYS column 3 of the list of thermal plants includes zeroes for the number
of sets. Similar to the case in FIXSYS, the values calculated by the program for full load heat
rate, unit generation costs base and full load (domestic, foreign), and the full load total
generation costs are reported in the last 6 columns of each line for the candidate thermal
plants. The full load total generation costs (last column to the right of the thermal plant list)
are used to define the economic loading order of these plants.

Next is the information on real emissions and group-limitations. The last item on page 3 of
Fig. 5.8 is the economic loading order calculated by the program. As stated in Section 4.3.2,
this information will be used by CONGEN to calculate the basic economic loading order of
the combined FIXSYS and VARSYS plants.

The page 4 of Fig. 5.8 shows the calculated characteristics of the hydroelectric projects, if
any, of each plant type, first for hydro type A and then hydro type B. For each group, the
individual hydro projects are listed separately. These are printed in a similar fashion as in
FIXSYS with the difference that in VARSYS the year of availability of the project is added4.
For example, hydro project 1 (VHY2) of the HYD1 type is available for expansion from 2003
onward while the second hydro project of the same type (VHY4) is available in year 2004.
But this has to be taken care when setting up the input order.

Additionally, the VARSYS printout contains the characteristics of the composite

hydroelectric plant types resulting from the combination of the individual characteristics of
the projects of the respective type considering all projects up to the current project. In other
words they are given: for the first project; for the first and the second; for the first, second and
third; and so on, up to the last project of the type. This information is printed immediately
after the individual characteristics of each hydro project have been reported in the output (see
page 4 of Fig. 5.8). These characteristics of composite hydro plants are also reported in a
similar fashion as in FIXSYS (see Section 4.3.2).

If there were any pumped-storage projects included in the input as candidates, the
characteristics of such individual projects and of the corresponding composite pumped-
storage plant would be printed after hydro.

The printout of VARSYS for the user's case study should be checked with great care to make
sure that the reported numbers are those intended by the user. Each number should be verified
carefully as some errors will not be identified by the WASP-IV code until the subsequent
modules are run (e.g. inconsistencies between FIXSYS and VARSYS input data), and some
of them will never be identified by the computer (e.g. a "wrong" data for the year of
availability of one hydro or P-S project).

1
For each hydro plant type the individual hydro projects are listed and used in the sequence of input and not in
ascending order of year of availability of the projects.

82
At least some internal inconsistencies in the input data are checked by the program and in
case of incompatibility with the capabilities of calculation, they will cause interruption of
program execution and an error message is printed. Some other inconsistencies will simply
produce an error (or warning) message being printed, in order to warn the user of the potential
sources of error for the subsequent WASP modules due to the input data used in VARSYS.
The error and warning messages applicable to VARSYS are treated in Section 5 of Chapter
13.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASP COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE

VARSYS MODULE

CASE STUDY

DEMOCASE: CASE STUDY FOR THE WASP-IV USERS' MANUAL

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 5.8. (page 1) VARSYS printout for the sample problem. Cover page.

83
VARIABLE SYSTEM INPUT DATA INFORMATION
INIT. [Link] [Link] HYDRO *** HYDRO PLANT TYPES *** PROBABILITY OF HYDROCONDITIONS NO.
OF PROJECTS
YEAR PERIODS PLANTS COND. NAME O&M NAME O&M 1 2 3 4 5 HYD1 HYD2 PUMP

0 4 5 3 HYD1 0.55 HYD2 0.55 0.450 0.300 0.250 0.000 0.000 2 2 0

HEAT RATE FUEL COSTS S FRCD

NO. MIN. CAP- BASE AVGE CENTS/ P OUTAGE DAYS MAIN O&M O&M
OF LOAD CITY LOAD INCR MILLION KCAL FUEL R RATE SCHL CLAS (FIX) (VAR) HEAT VALUE
EMISSION FACTOR
NAME SETS MW MW KCAL/ KWH DMSTC FORGN TYPE % % MAIN MW $/KWM $/MWH KCAL/KG
WT % OF FUEL

V-CC 0 300. 600. 1950. 1950. 0.0 1200.0 6 0 10.0 28 600. 2.10 4.00 11000.00 0.00 0.50
VLG1 0 150. 280. 3100. 2700. 710.0 0.0 1 10 10.0 56 280. 2.70 6.00 1800.00 2.50 1.00
VLG2 0 150. 280. 3000. 2600. 1100.0 0.0 2 10 10.0 56 280. 2.70 6.00 1800.00 2.50 1.00
VCOA 0 400. 580. 2600. 2200. 0.0 800.0 3 10 8.0 48 600. 2.92 5.00 6000.00 1.00 2.00
NUCL 0 300. 600. 2600. 2340. 0.0 194.0 0 7 10.0 42 600. 2.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
NGROUPLM EMISNAME MEASIND
4 SO2 NOx 1 2 3 1
*** REAL EMISSION ***
NPLANTS 4
PLANTIND 1 2 3 4

NPLANTS 4
PLANTIND 1 2 3 4
*** GROUP LIMITATION ***
NPLANTS 1
PLANTIND 3

NPLANTS 3
PLANTIND 2 3 4

NPLANTS 4
PLANTIND 1 2 3 4

NPLANTS 0
PROJECT 1 (NAME: VHY2) OF HYDRO TYPE *** HYD1 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 200. MW REG. ENERGY: 100.00 GWH
AVAILABLE YEAR: 2003
HYDROCONDITION 1 HYDROCONDITION 2 HYDROCONDITION 3
EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC
70.3 0.0 160.0 42.6 0.0 140.0 98.0 0.0 200.0
70.3 0.0 160.0 42.6 0.0 140.0 98.0 0.0 200.0
70.3 0.0 160.0 42.6 0.0 140.0 98.0 0.0 200.0
70.3 0.0 160.0 42.6 0.0 140.0 98.0 0.0 200.0

PROJECT 2 (NAME: VHY3) OF HYDRO TYPE *** HYD1 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 650. MW REG. ENERGY: 300.00 GWH
AVAILABLE YEAR: 2004

HYDROCONDITION 1 HYDROCONDITION 2 HYDROCONDITION 3

EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC

620.0 300.0 490.0 560.0 400.0 490.0 700.0 200.0 550.0

720.0 200.0 520.0 600.0 300.0 515.0 790.0 100.0 560.0
820.0 150.0 550.0 660.0 100.0 530.0 950.0 50.0 650.0
760.0 200.0 540.0 620.0 300.0 525.0 850.0 100.0 600.0

PROJECT 1 (NAME: VHY1) OF HYDRO TYPE *** HYD2 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 120. MW REG. ENERGY: 157.00 GWH
AVAILABLE YEAR: 2002
HYDROCONDITION 1 HYDROCONDITION 2 HYDROCONDITION 3
EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC
67.5 0.0 100.0 51.4 0.0 80.0 83.7 0.0 120.0
67.5 0.0 100.0 51.4 0.0 80.0 83.7 0.0 120.0
67.5 0.0 100.0 51.4 0.0 80.0 83.7 0.0 120.0
67.5 0.0 100.0 51.4 0.0 80.0 83.7 0.0 120.0
PROJECT 2 (NAME: VHY4) OF HYDRO TYPE *** HYD2 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 193. MW REG. ENERGY: 65.00 GWH
AVAILABLE YEAR: 2005
HYDROCONDITION 1 HYDROCONDITION 2 HYDROCONDITION 3
EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC EA EMIN MWC
88.6 0.0 120.0 63.0 0.0 100.0 114.3 0.0 140.0
88.6 0.0 120.0 63.0 0.0 100.0 114.3 0.0 140.0
88.6 0.0 120.0 63.0 0.0 100.0 114.3 0.0 140.0
88.6 0.0 120.0 63.0 0.0 100.0 114.3 0.0 140.0

Figure 5.8. (page 2) VARSYS printout for the sample problem. Input information.

84
VARIABLE SYSTEM, RESULT OF THE STUDY
4 PERIODS
3 HYDRO CONDITIONS

HEAT RATE FUEL COSTS S FRCD FLD UNIT GENERATION

NO. MIN. CAP- BASE AVGE CENTS/ P OUTAGE DAYS MAIN O&M O&M HEAT RT
COSTS ($/MWH)
SEQ. OF LOAD CITY LOAD INCR MILLION KCAL FUEL R RATE SCHL CLAS (FIX) (VAR) KCAL/
BASE BASE FLD FLD FLD
NO. NAME SETS MW MW KCAL/ KWH DMSTC FORGN TYPE % % MAIN MW $/KWM $/MWH
KWH DOM FRGN DOM FRGN TOT

1 V-CC 0 300. 600. 1950. 1950. 0.0 1200.0 6 0 10.0 28 600. 2.10 4.00 1950. 4.0 23.4 4.0 23.4 27.4
2 VLG1 0 150. 280. 3100. 2700. 710.0 0.0 1 10 10.0 56 280. 2.70 6.00 2914. 28.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 26.7
3 VLG2 0 150. 280. 3000. 2600. 1100.0 0.0 2 10 10.0 56 280. 2.70 6.00 2814. 39.0 0.0 37.0 0.0 37.0
4 VCOA 0 400. 580. 2600. 2200. 0.0 800.0 3 10 8.0 48 600. 2.92 5.00 2476. 5.0 20.8 5.0 19.8 24.8
5 NUCL 0 300. 600. 2600. 2340. 0.0 194.0 0 7 10.0 42 600. 2.50 0.50 2470. 0.5 5.0 0.5 4.8 5.3

*** REAL EMISSION ***

NO. TYPE PLANTS INVOLVED (PLANT SEQUENCE NUMBER)

1 SO2 1 2 3 4
2 NOx 1 2 3 4

*** GROUP LIMITATION ***

NO. TYPE PLANTS INVOLVED (PLANT SEQUENCE NUMBER)

1 FUEL 3
2 SO2 2 3 4
3 NOx 1 2 3 4
4 FUEL *** NONE ***

ECONOMIC LOADING ORDER DEFINED IN ASCENDING ORDER OF TOTAL FULL LOAD UNIT GENERATION
COSTS

5 4 2 1 3

Figure 5.8. (page 3) VARSYS printout for the sample problem. Description of variable system.

85
PROJECT 1 INSTALLED CAP.: 200. MW REG. ENERGY: 100.00 GWH AVAILABLE YEAR: 2003
HYDROCONDITION 1 * HYDROCONDITION 2 * HYDROCONDITION 3 *
BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY
MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR

0. 160. 70. 6.7 4 0. 140. 43. 4.7 4 0. 200. 98. 7.5 4

0. 160. 70. 6.7 4 0. 140. 43. 4.7 4 0. 200. 98. 7.5 4
0. 160. 70. 6.7 4 0. 140. 43. 4.7 4 0. 200. 98. 7.5 4
0. 160. 70. 6.7 4 0. 140. 43. 4.7 4 0. 200. 98. 7.5 4

1 PROJECTS COMPOSED IN HYDRO TYPE *** HYD1 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 200. MW
************************************************* ************************
HYDROCONDITION 1 * HYDROCONDITION 2 * HYDROCONDITION 3 *
BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL
MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW

0. 160. 70. 160. 0. 140. 43. 140. 0. 200. 98. 200.

0. 160. 70. 160. 0. 140. 43. 140. 0. 200. 98. 200.
0. 160. 70. 160. 0. 140. 43. 140. 0. 200. 98. 200.
0. 160. 70. 160. 0. 140. 43. 140. 0. 200. 98. 200.

PROJECT 2 INSTALLED CAP.: 650. MW REG. ENERGY: 300.00 GWH AVAILABLE YEAR: 2004

HYDROCONDITION 1 * HYDROCONDITION 2 * HYDROCONDITION 3 *

BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY
MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR

137. 353. 320. 13.9 4 183. 307. 160. 8.0 4 91. 459. 500. 16.7 4
91. 429. 520. 18.6 4 137. 378. 300. 12.2 4 46. 514. 690. 20.6 4
68. 482. 670. 21.3 4 46. 484. 560. 17.7 4 23. 627. 900. 22.0 4
91. 449. 560. 19.1 4 137. 388. 320. 12.7 4 46. 554. 750. 20.8 4

2 PROJECTS COMPOSED IN HYDRO TYPE *** HYD1 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 850. MW
************************************************* ************************
HYDROCONDITION 1 * HYDROCONDITION 2 * HYDROCONDITION 3 *
BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL
MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW

137. 513. 390. 650. 183. 447. 203. 630. 91. 659. 598. 750.
91. 589. 590. 680. 137. 518. 343. 655. 46. 714. 788. 760.
68. 642. 740. 710. 46. 624. 603. 670. 23. 827. 998. 850.
91. 609. 630. 700. 137. 528. 363. 665. 46. 754. 848. 800.

FOLLOWING HYDRO PROJECTS ARE OF TYPE *** HYD2 *** O&M (FIX) = 0.55 $/KW-MONTH
************************************************************************************************************************
PROJECT 1 INSTALLED CAP.: 120. MW REG. ENERGY: 157.00 GWH AVAILABLE YEAR: 2002
HYDROCONDITION 1 * HYDROCONDITION 2 * HYDROCONDITION 3 *
BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY
MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR

0. 100. 68. 10.4 4 0. 80. 51. 9.9 4 0. 120. 84. 10.7 4

0. 100. 68. 10.4 4 0. 80. 51. 9.9 4 0. 120. 84. 10.7 4
0. 100. 68. 10.4 4 0. 80. 51. 9.9 4 0. 120. 84. 10.7 4
0. 100. 68. 10.4 4 0. 80. 51. 9.9 4 0. 120. 84. 10.7 4
1 PROJECTS COMPOSED IN HYDRO TYPE *** HYD2 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 120. MW
************************************************* ************************
HYDROCONDITION 1 * HYDROCONDITION 2 * HYDROCONDITION 3 *
BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL
MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW

0. 100. 68. 100. 0. 80. 51. 80. 0. 120. 84. 120.

0. 100. 68. 100. 0. 80. 51. 80. 0. 120. 84. 120.
0. 100. 68. 100. 0. 80. 51. 80. 0. 120. 84. 120.
0. 100. 68. 100. 0. 80. 51. 80. 0. 120. 84. 120.

PROJECT 2 INSTALLED CAP.: 193. MW REG. ENERGY: 65.00 GWH AVAILABLE YEAR: 2005

HYDROCONDITION 1 * HYDROCONDITION 2 * HYDROCONDITION 3 *

BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY BASE PEAK P-ENG P-HR KEY
MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR MW MW GWH HR

0. 120. 89. 11.3 4 0. 100. 63. 9.7 4 0. 140. 114. 12.5 4

0. 120. 89. 11.3 4 0. 100. 63. 9.7 4 0. 140. 114. 12.5 4
0. 120. 89. 11.3 4 0. 100. 63. 9.7 4 0. 140. 114. 12.5 4
0. 120. 89. 11.3 4 0. 100. 63. 9.7 4 0. 140. 114. 12.5 4
2 PROJECTS COMPOSED IN HYDRO TYPE *** HYD2 *** INSTALLED CAP.: 313. MW
************************************************* ************************
HYDROCONDITION 1 * HYDROCONDITION 2 * HYDROCONDITION 3 *
BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL BASE PEAK P-ENG AVAIL
MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW MW MW GWH MW

0. 220. 156. 220. 0. 180. 114. 180. 0. 260. 198. 260.

0. 220. 156. 220. 0. 180. 114. 180. 0. 260. 198. 260.
0. 220. 156. 220. 0. 180. 114. 180. 0. 260. 198. 260.
0. 220. 156. 220. 0. 180. 114. 180. 0. 260. 198. 260.

Figure 5.8. (page 4) VARSYS printout for the sample problem. Description of variable system.

86
 CHAPTER 6. EXECUTION OF CONGEN

To start the execution of CONGEN module the user should click the CONGEN button in the
WASP Modules screen (Fig. 2.11). The CONGEN main screen will be displayed (Figure
6.1). As for the previous modules, this screen has the following four options:

• Enter/Modify CONGEN Input, to enter or modify data for the module;

• Execute CONGEN, to execute the module, after completing the input data
entering/modifying;

• View CONGEN Output, to view or print the module output;

• Back, to return to the previous screen.

Figure 6.1. Main screen CONGEN.

6.1. Input/output files

CONGEN module uses 6 input/output files. The input file [Link] is created/updated
by the Windows interface using the data entered by the user in input screens for the module,
as described in the next section. The other input files are: [Link] produced by
LOADSY module, [Link] generated by FIXSYS module and [Link]
produced by VARSYS module. CONGEN generates an intermediate file, [Link]
to be used by other modules of WASP-IV. The results are reported in an output file called
[Link], which should be reviewed by the user to confirm successful execution before
proceeding further.

6.2. Input data preparation

Sometimes, it is convenient to carry out a WASP run with a predetermined expansion plan
(i.e. one single configuration per year) in order to validate and debug input data for modules
CONGEN, MERSIM and DYNPRO and to examine such aspects as cash flows, value of the
objective function as a function of varying economic parameters, and comparison of a limited
number of expansion policies. For the purposes of the discussion that follows, this type of run
is called a “fixed expansion plan”. This usually involves execution in sequential order of
modules 4 to 6 (and sometimes module 7).

87
Carrying out a WASP run for a fixed expansion plan has also the advantage of permitting to
check up the accuracy of data records used by Modules 4 to 6 (and 7), as well as the files
created by each preceding module which are called upon during program execution. This is
particularly valid for the first runs of CONGEN (MERSIM and DYNPRO) under the user's
case name.
Another, more frequent mode of use of CONGEN is for “variable expansion”, in which the
model is used to generate all alternative configurations which will satisfy the user-imposed
constraints on reserve margins and the number of units (or projects) of each expansion
candidate.
The selection of one of the two expansion modes is made in screen Type of Case (Fig. 2.10).
Depending on this choice, when clicking the Enter/Modify CONGEN Input button in the
main screen CONGEN one of the following screens is displayed:
• CONGEN_Fixed Expansion Analysis Data, shown in Figure 6.2, if fixed
(predetermined) expansion mode was chosen;
• CONGEN_Optimization Expansion Analysis Data, shown in Figure 6.3, if variable
(optimization) expansion mode was selected.
In CONGEN_Fixed Expansion Analysis Data screen (Fig. 6.2) the following two
parameters are independent of the year of study:
• printing option for FIXSYS and VARSYS information; if activated, this function adds
at the beginning of the output file [Link] some useful information on fixed
and variable systems;
• number of the hydro-condition for which critical period and reserve margins are to be
calculated (usually, the driest of the defined hydro-conditions).
The rest of the screen includes fields for input data relating to each year of the study period:
• minimum and maximum permissible reserve margins (% of the peak load) for the
unique configuration for the year; reserve margins are calculated for so-called “critical
period” of the year, i.e. the period in which the difference between the corresponding
available generating capacity and the peak load is the smallest;
• number of units of each thermal expansion candidate (or projects for hydro and
pumped-storage candidates) required to be in service during current year (annual
configuration of expansion units/projects); similar number of units/projects entered for
the previous year are also shown for the convenience of the user.
To move from one year to another the right-side scroll arrows are clicked.

88
 Figure 6.2. CONGEN input screen for fixed expansion mode.

For a predetermined expansion plan it is recommended that the minimum and maximum
reserve margins be such that they permit a wide range of acceptable capacity for the
configurations, so that the unique annual configuration of candidate units/projects is not
excluded in any year.

For the variable expansion mode the unique annual configuration of candidate units/projects
is replaced by the following two constraints, according to which CONGEN generates all the
possible configurations to be simulated by MERSIM and compared by the dynamic
programming algorithm of DYNPRO:

• minimum number of units/projects of each expansion candidate to be in service during

current year; and

• maximum acceptable number of units/projects of each expansion candidate, in

addition to the minimum number previously defined; it is also called the “tunnel
width”.

Therefore, the input screen CONGEN_Optimization Expansion Analysis Data (Fig. 6.3)
has been modified accordingly, having additional fields to define the tunnel width for each
expansion candidate. As for the fixed expansion mode, this screen includes information on the
previous year but this time in terms of minimum number of units and tunnel width for each
candidate unit/project. In addition, for the convenience of the user, the screen shows the
previous best solution found by DYNPRO for CONGEN annual configurations from the
previous iteration, along with DYNPRO messages on how to modify CONGEN input in order
to improve the best solution by DYNPRO (see Chapter 8 for details on DYNPRO messages).

89
 Figure 6.3. CONGEN input screen for optimization expansion mode.

The necessary information for decoding the [Link] file as well the input data for
CONGEN input screens, are described in Table 6.1.

90
Table 6.1 Input data for CONGEN module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format Comment
type1 name 2
Title of study3 X IDENT A60

Printing option for FIXSYS X IOFILE I4 To activate the option, click in the
and VARSYS information. corresponding field of the screen (‘1’ in
[Link] file): print useful
information from [Link] and
[Link] files;

To deactivate, click again (‘0’ in

[Link] file): no printing of files.

Index number4 telling the 1 INDEX I4 “1” indicates end of input data for
computer what to do next. the current year;
“2” indicates that one type-2 record follows;

“3” indicates that one type-3 record follows;

“4” indicates that one type-4 record follows;

“8” indicates that one type-8 record follows.

Minimum number of sets of 2 MINST(J)

6
14I4 J maximum =145;
variable system expansion
candidate type J required to Default values =0;
be in service during current
year.
Number of sets for candidate type J
should be greater than, or equal to
the corresponding number
previously used in the preceding
year.

Maximum number of sets of 3 ITWTH(J) 14I4 It is also called the “tunnel width”;
6
the expansion candidate type
J permitted for expansion in J maximum =145;
addition to MINST(J).
Default values = 0.

Minimum permissible RSVMN F10 Default value = 0.

reserve margin (% of the
peak load) in critical period7.

Maximum permissible 4 RSVMX F10 Default value = 0;

reserve margin (% of the
peak load) in critical period7. Must be defined with a non-zero value for
the first year of the study period.

Number of the hydro- 8 IHCRI I4 Usually, the driest of the defined hydro-
condition for which critical conditions.
period and reserve margins
are to be calculated. Default value = 1.

91
Notes to Table 6.1
1 Relevant only for decoding the content of [Link] file but not for filling in
input data screens.
2 See Section 2.6 for Format description.
3 Not entered by the user in the current screen. Handled by the interface.
4 INDEX = 5, 6 and 7 is not available in CONGEN.
5 The order of the expansion candidates is: first, the thermal plants in the same order
they were read in VARSYS (from 1 to NTHPLV); followed by hydro projects type A
(if they exist in VARSYS), hydro projects type B (if they exist in VARSYS), and
finally pumped-storage projects PUMP (if they exist in VARSYS).
6 The sum of the numbers given in the type-2 and type-3 records for each expansion
candidate should always be greater than, or equal to, the sum of the respective
numbers applicable for the preceding year.
7 Critical period: The period of the year in which the difference between the
corresponding available generating capacity and the peak load is the smallest.
6.3. Sample problem
Section 6.3.1 describes how a fixed expansion plan is carried out with the CONGEN module
and presents the sample data for the first CONGEN run of DEMOCASE. The corresponding
printout for this run is presented in Section 6.3.2, while the subsequent MERSIM and
DYNPRO runs for this fixed expansion plan are presented in Sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 for
MERSIM, and in Sections 8.3.1 and 8.3.2 for DYNPRO. The use of CONGEN to generate
alternative configurations for each year (called a dynamic or variable expansion run) which
are to be, first, simulated by MERSIM, and then compared by the dynamic programming
algorithm of DYNPRO is discussed in Sections 6.3.3 and 6.3.4.
6.3.1. Input data for a fixed expansion plan (CONGEN Run-1)
Figure 6.4 represents the listing of the [Link] file, generated by the Windows interface
using the data entered by the user in CONGEN_Fixed Expansion Analysis Data screen (Fig.
6.2) for a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem, corresponding to the first CONGEN run
for DEMOCASE, therefore identified as CONGEN Run-1.
The first input line in Fig. 6.4 is a record containing in columns 1-60 the title of study and in
column 64 the selected option for printing of the FIXSYS and VARSYS files (in this case a 1
asks for printing of this information). In principle, all comments made in Section 3.3.1 for the
title of study to be used in LOADSY are also valid for CONGEN. Also, as stated in that section,
the same title of the study is used along all runs of our sample problem.
The second line of data is a type-1 INDEX=4 record and is followed by a type-4 record, which
is used to specify the minimum and maximum reserve margins in the critical period, in percent
(%) of peak load.
For a predetermined expansion plan it is recommended that the minimum and maximum reserve
margins be such that they permit a wide range of acceptable capacity for the configurations, so
that the predetermined plan is not excluded in any year. In the example, a minimum reserve
margin of 15% and a maximum of 50% have been specified5.

5
If the capacity of fixed system (FIXSYS) in the initial years is insufficient and new capacity (VARSYS)
can not be added for these years (i.e. total capacity below the peak load of the critical period), a negative
value for the minimum reserve margin can be used to guarantee that the configurations (with zero
additions) are accepted.

92
The following group of lines includes a type-1 INDEX=8 record, followed by one type-8
record telling the computer that the reserve margins of the configurations are to be calculated
for the selected hydro-condition 1.
The following two lines are one type-1 INDEX=2 and one type-2 records giving the minimum
number of sets (or projects in the case of hydro and pumped-storage plants) of each candidate
plant that can be included in the yearly configurations. This set of numbers will normally
determine the so-called "minimum configuration" required by the program in the given year;
however, since this is a predetermined expansion plan, in this case they determine the system
configuration for the year. The order of the expansion candidates is the same as in the
VARSYS listing shown in Figures 5.7 and 5.8. Hence, column 4 applies to the V-CC plant;
column 8 to the VLG1 plant and so on, with the last two columns applying to the two
composite hydro plants (HYD1 and HYD2). In the sample problem all columns are shown as
zeroes meaning that no addition of VARSYS candidates is considered in this year.
Normally, the previous two lines should be followed by a group including one type-1 INDEX=3
and one type-3 records giving the maximum number of sets (or projects) of each expansion
candidate permitted for addition to the system, above the minimum number of sets (or projects)
specified in the type-2 record. The set of numbers in the type-3 record will normally determine
the so-called "tunnel-width". However, since this is a predetermined expansion plan, the
minimum and maximum number of units or projects permitted are the same (i.e. the tunnel
width is zero for all candidates). Therefore, for fixed expansion mode the user interface doesn’t
include the type-3 record and the corresponding type-1 INDEX=3 record in [Link] file
for this type of run.
The last line of input for this year (1998) is a record type-1 INDEX=1 (end of the year
record). Similarly as explained for the previous WASP-IV modules, CONGEN will read the
"1" in column 4 and will proceed to execute the calculations for the year. For the convenience
of the user, however, the year is shown in this record (columns 16 to 28) to indicate the end of
input information for the year being considered.
The input data for the second year (1999) includes a type-1 INDEX=2 record to indicate that
another type-2 record follows. This record shows a 0 in all columns (again no addition of
VARSYS candidates is made in this year). These are followed by a type-1 INDEX=1 record to
tell the computer that the data for 1999 have been completed. Exactly same data records are
given for year 2000.
The first addition of VARSYS candidates is made in year 2001. This is shown in the subsequent
type-2 record which includes a 1 in column 4, corresponding to addition of one unit of the first
thermal plant (V-CC).
The same sequence of records (one type-1 INDEX=2, a type-2 and a type-1 INDEX=1
records) follows up to the end of the study describing each year's configurations and
indicating the end of data for that year. The numbers of units of each candidate to be specified
as minimum additions on the type-2 record are the cumulative numbers. For example the
configuration in the last year of study (2017) includes 3 4 6 9 4 2 2, meaning that up to
this year 3x 600 MW combined cycle units (plant V-CC); 4 x 280 MW lignite-1 based units
(plant VLG1); 6 x 280 MW lignite-2 based units (plant VLG2); 9 x 580 MW coal based units
(plant VCOA); 4 x 600 nuclear units, 2 hydro projects of the HYD1 type, and 2 hydro
projects of the HYD2 type have been added.
It may be noted that in the year 2004, there is one type-1 record with INDEX=4, followed by a
type-4 record containing new values for minimum and maximum reserve margins. Such records
may be used for changing the reserve margins in any year.

93
Demonstration Case (Fixed Expansion) 1
4
15. 50.
8
1
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 1998)
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 1999)
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2000)
2
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2001)
2
1 1 0 1 0 0 1
1 (END OF YEAR 2002)
2
2 1 0 1 0 1 1
1 (END OF YEAR 2003)
4
20. 40.
2
3 1 0 1 0 2 1
1 (END OF YEAR 2004)
2
3 2 0 1 0 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2005)
2
3 2 0 2 1 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2006)
2
3 2 1 3 1 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2007)
2
3 2 1 3 1 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2008)
2
3 2 1 4 1 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2009)
2
3 2 2 5 1 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2010)
2
3 2 3 5 2 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2011)
2
3 2 3 6 2 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2012)
2
3 3 4 7 2 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2013)
2
3 3 5 8 2 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2014)
2
3 3 5 8 3 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2015)
2
3 4 5 9 3 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2016)
2
3 4 6 9 4 2 2
1 (END OF YEAR 2017)

Figure 6.4. WASP-IV CONGEN input data for a fixed expansion for the sample problem.
CONGEN Run-1.

94
6.3.2. Printout for a fixed expansion plan (CONGEN Run-1)

When clicking View CONGEN Output button in the main screen CONGEN, the
[Link] file is displayed. Figure 6.5 shows a sample of the printed output of the
CONGEN run using the data of Fig. 6.4. Since the file printing option has been set to "1" for
this run, the output begins with a listing of the information read by CONGEN from the
FIXSYS and VARSYS files. Pages 1 to 2 of Fig. 6.5 show these listings for the CONGEN
Run-1 of the sample case.

Page 1 contains the description of the Fixed System for year 1998, as it was written by the
latest run of FIXSYS on the [Link] file labeled "DEMOCASE". The same
information is used by CONGEN while generating the configurations of the system for this
year6. The top part starts with the title of the study, followed by a listing of the "fuel" types
used in the study (first the thermal plant fuel types, and then the two composite hydro plants).

The lower part in page 1 lists the actual description of the Fixed System for the year, starting
with the number of the year (1 for first year of study), followed by the number of records read
in (35 in this case), the corresponding year (1998), and the general information which was
written on record type A of [Link] (see Fig. 4.9). Lines 2 to 7 show the state of the
FIXSYS thermal plants in this year. Line 8 corresponds to the summary of thermal capacity
by type of fuel and number of composed projects of hydro type A and B (3 and 2
respectively); line 9 is the basic economic loading order of the FIXSYS thermal plants; and
line 10 lists the full load total operating costs of these plants. The next group of lines shows
the characteristics of the two composite hydro plants. Starting with hydro type A, first period,
first hydro-condition, followed by the remaining hydro-conditions. This block of lines (3 in
this case) is repeated for each period (total of 4 times). Then same information for hydro type
B. The sequence of the data included in each line is as follows: name of the hydro plant type
(NAMH); number of projects composed (NCH); year of this information (JAV); total
installed capacity (CMWI); the base (CMWB), peak (CMWP), and total available capacity
(CMWC); and the base (CEM), peak (CEP), and total available energy (CEA). (This
information is the same one shown in pages 4 and 5 of Fig. 4.9, except that for hydroelectric
plants, only the characteristics of each composite plant are included. The individual
characteristics of the hydro projects of each type are indeed not required for the calculations
carried out by CONGEN, MERSIM or DYNPRO).

The printout continues with the Variable System description, as it will be used by CONGEN.
Page 2 of Fig. 6.5 shows this part of the printout for CONGEN Run-1 of the sample problem.
Comparing this information with the one shown in page 4 of Fig. 5.8, it can be seen that they
are basically the same, except that in the CONGEN printout only the characteristics of each
composite hydro plant are included (combining up to the first, up to the second, and up to the
last project of the corresponding type). It should also be noticed that the information listed in
this page follows the same sequence described for the state of the Fixed System discussed
above, except that in VARSYS the year shown in the listing of hydro plant corresponds to the
latest year of availability of the projects combined in the respective plant type.

6
The information shown in this page actually spreads over two separate pages of the printout. These have been
compressed into a single page to reduce the size of the manual.

95
Page 3 of Fig. 6.5, on top, shows the cover page printed by CONGEN (which serves to
identify the run) showing the title of the study and the list of the Variable System expansion
candidates which is read from the VARSYS file. This list starts with the thermal plants,
followed by the two hydro plants defined for the sample problem. (In case a P-S candidate is
present, this will be listed next). Each expansion candidate is identified by its code name and
the sequential number in which the candidate is defined in VARSYS. The same sequential
order is used throughout the printout to define the system configurations.

The next piece of output produced by CONGEN in this particular run consists of the basic
economic loading order calculation using the individual list of FIXSYS and VARSYS thermal
plants and contains all the information read from these two modules for the associated plants.
This is shown in the middle part of page 3 of Fig. 6.5. The last two lines of this part list, in
sequence, the resulting basic economic loading order and the full load total generation costs
for the combined FIXSYS and VARSYS systems. This information will be passed by
CONGEN onto MERSIM where it can be used for calculation of the actual loading order of
the blocks of capacity of thermal plants, if the user so desires (hydro plants will be handled
automatically).

The bottom part of page 3 of Fig. 6.5 shows the results of the CONGEN analysis for the first
year of study (1998). It starts with the number of Fourier coefficients (read from the
LOADSY file), followed by the INDEX number of the data records type-1 in the sequence
read for the year, and the constraints used to generate the configurations. These include the
constraints on the minimum required number of sets (or projects) and the maximum
additional number of sets (or projects) of each expansion candidate, followed by the minimum
and maximum acceptable values for reserve margins. Next, the output reports the hydro-
condition (1 in this case) for which the critical period and reserve margin of the configurations
are to be calculated. This is followed by a summary of the Fixed System capacity by period,
also broken down into thermal plants and the two composite hydro plants (in case P-S plants
are present, their capacity will also be listed next), together with the information on the period
peak loads (as read from the LOADSY file). The critical period (4 in this case) is next
identified in the printout, and the minimum and maximum acceptable capacities (based on the
reserve margins specified) in this period are listed. This is followed by the total capacity of
the "minimum configuration" of the year (i.e. capacity of all plants in FIXSYS plus the
capacities of all units or projects defined as minimum required shown above) in the critical
period. The next output line is the minimum number of Fourier coefficients required for
accurate LOLP calculation for the maximum reserve margin capacity (5 in this case). This
value is an indication of how far is the maximum reserve margin capacity from the limit of
validity of the Fourier Series approximation to the inverted load duration curve (this limit is
equal to Peak load + 2 x Min. load). A too-high value of this required number of Fourier
coefficients (i.e. close to the number defined in LOADSY or later in MERSIM) will indicate
the user that the maximum reserve margin should be lowered if accurate calculation of LOLP
is required for all configurations.

The printout proceeds with the actual list of configurations generated by CONGEN for this
year while respecting all above-mentioned constraints. The information for each configuration
(state) is reported in one line of the output as follows (with reference to the state on page 3 of
Fig. 6.5): the first column (STATE) is the number of the configuration throughout the run (1),
the second column (IC) the state number of the year (1), the third column (CAP) the capacity
of the state (6965. MW) in the critical period (notice it is within the range reported above).
The right-hand columns list the accepted configurations for the year. Since this is a
predetermined expansion plan, only one configuration has been accepted. This is identified

96
with "0" for all expansion candidates reported on top. The remaining information consists of
the number of configurations for the year and the total number of accepted configurations
accumulated through the current year (both 1 in this case).

A similar output is produced for each year of the study with the only difference that the
information read by CONGEN from the VARSYS file will not be repeated. However, the
Fixed System description for the year will be listed. As an example, page 4 of Fig. 6.5 shows
the output for year 2004. Since some changes were made to thermal and hydro plants of
FIXSYS up to this year (see Fig. 4.9, page 4), these have been reported in the Fixed System
description. (Note the value of STATE is cumulative (7) as is the last line of results (7)).

After reporting information for all years, at the end of the printout, a list of the number of
configurations generated within the constraints for each year is included. For a predetermined
expansion plan run, there must be one and only one accepted configuration per year as shown
in page 5 of Fig. 6.5. This is also an indication of successful run of CONGEN for a
predetermined expansion plan. If for any year an error message ***NO STATES
DEFINED*** appears, it would mean that the total capacity for that year does not fall in the
required capacity range determined by reserve margins (the user may consult Chapter 13 for
correcting the inputs in such a case). Other features of the CONGEN printout are described in
the discussion of the variable expansion runs for the sample problem (see Section 6.3.4).

97
Demonstration Case (Fixed Expansion)
0 NUCL NUCLEAR PLANTS
1 LIG1 LIGNITE-1 PLANTS
2 LIG2 LIGNITE-2 PLANTS
3 COAL COAL PLANTS
4 FOIL OIL PLANTS
5 GTGO GAS TURBINES GAS-OIL
6 NGAS NATURAL GAS PLANTS
7 **** NOT APPLICABLE
8 **** NOT APPLICABLE
9 **** NOT APPLICABLE
10 HYD1 HYDRO PLANTS GROUP 1
11 HYD2 HYDRO PLANTS GROUP 2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 35 1998 4 6 3 HYD1 HYD2 0.55 0.55 0.4500 0.3000 0.2500 0.0000 0.0000 0
FLG1 4 150. 270. 3300. 2850. 600. 0. 1 10 10.0 56 280. 4.06 4.90
FLG2 9 150. 276. 2900. 2550. 495. 0. 2 10 8.9 56 280. 1.91 2.00
FCOA 1 400. 580. 2800. 2300. 800. 0. 3 10 8.0 48 600. 2.92 5.00
FOIL 7 80. 145. 2450. 2150. 0. 833. 4 10 7.3 42 140. 4.57 1.60
F-GT 4 50. 50. 3300. 3300. 420. 0. 5 0 6.0 42 50. 8.35 1.60
F-CC 1 87. 174. 2048. 2048. 0. 1266. 6 0 15.0 28 180. 2.10 5.00
5533. 0. 1080. 2484. 580. 1015. 200. 174. 0. 0. 0. 3 2
7 4 6 3 5 8
15.46 15.56 20.89 23.50 26.16 30.93

NAMH NCH JAV CMWI CMWB CMWP CMWC CEM CEP CEA
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 210.0 965.0 1175.0 460.0 875.0 1335.0
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 214.6 780.4 995.0 470.0 595.0 1065.0
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 200.9 1049.1 1250.0 440.0 1180.1 1620.1
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 210.0 975.0 1185.0 460.0 925.0 1385.0
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 214.6 800.4 1015.0 470.0 645.0 1115.0
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 200.9 1099.1 1300.0 440.0 1230.1 1670.1
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 210.0 1005.0 1215.0 460.0 1025.0 1485.0
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 214.6 820.4 1035.0 470.0 745.0 1215.0
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 200.9 1149.1 1350.0 440.0 1330.1 1770.1
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 210.0 1035.0 1245.0 460.0 1075.0 1535.0
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 214.6 860.4 1075.0 470.0 845.0 1315.0
HYD1 3 1998 1650.0 200.9 1399.1 1600.0 440.0 1430.1 1870.1
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 187.0 187.0 0.0 102.1 102.1
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 160.0 160.0 0.0 69.9 69.9
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 206.0 206.0 0.0 134.1 134.1
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 187.0 187.0 0.0 102.1 102.1
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 160.0 160.0 0.0 69.9 69.9
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 206.0 206.0 0.0 134.1 134.1
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 187.0 187.0 0.0 102.1 102.1
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 160.0 160.0 0.0 69.9 69.9
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 206.0 206.0 0.0 134.1 134.1
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 187.0 187.0 0.0 102.1 102.1
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 160.0 160.0 0.0 69.9 69.9
HYD2 2 1998 206.4 0.0 206.0 206.0 0.0 134.1 134.1
1998

Figure 6.5. (page 1) CONGEN printout for a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem. Thermal
fuel types and fixed system description for the year 1998 (from FIXSYS file).

98
 Demonstration Case (Fixed Expansion)
0 58 0 4 5 3 HYD1 HYD2 0.55 0.55 0.4500 0.3000 0.2500 0.0000 0.0000 0
V-CC 0 300. 600. 1950. 1950. 0. 1200. 6 0 10.0 28 600. 2.10 4.00
VLG1 0 150. 280. 3100. 2700. 710. 0. 1 10 10.0 56 280. 2.70 6.00
VLG2 0 150. 280. 3000. 2600. 1100. 0. 2 10 10.0 56 280. 2.70 6.00
VCOA 0 400. 580. 2600. 2200. 0. 800. 3 10 8.0 48 600. 2.92 5.00
NUCL 0 300. 600. 2600. 2340. 0. 194. 0 7 10.0 42 600. 2.50 0.50
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2 2
5 4 2 1 3
5.29 24.81 26.69 27.40 36.96

NAMH NCH JAV CMWI CMWB CMWP CMWC CEM CEP CEA
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 160.0 160.0 0.0 70.3 70.3
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 140.0 140.0 0.0 42.6 42.6
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 200.0 200.0 0.0 98.0 98.0
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 160.0 160.0 0.0 70.3 70.3
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 140.0 140.0 0.0 42.6 42.6
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 200.0 200.0 0.0 98.0 98.0
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 160.0 160.0 0.0 70.3 70.3
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 140.0 140.0 0.0 42.6 42.6
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 200.0 200.0 0.0 98.0 98.0
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 160.0 160.0 0.0 70.3 70.3
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 140.0 140.0 0.0 42.6 42.6
HYD1 1 2003 200.0 0.0 200.0 200.0 0.0 98.0 98.0
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 137.0 513.0 650.0 300.0 390.3 690.3
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 182.6 447.4 630.0 400.0 202.6 602.6
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 91.3 658.7 750.0 200.0 598.0 798.0
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 91.3 588.7 680.0 200.0 590.3 790.3
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 137.0 518.0 655.0 300.0 342.6 642.6
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 45.7 714.3 760.0 100.0 788.0 888.0
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 68.5 641.5 710.0 150.0 740.3 890.3
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 45.7 624.3 670.0 100.0 602.6 702.6
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 22.8 827.2 850.0 50.0 998.0 1048.0
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 91.3 608.7 700.0 200.0 630.3 830.3
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 137.0 528.0 665.0 300.0 362.6 662.6
HYD1 2 2004 850.0 45.7 754.3 800.0 100.0 848.0 948.0
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 67.5 67.5
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 80.0 80.0 0.0 51.4 51.4
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 120.0 120.0 0.0 83.7 83.7
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 67.5 67.5
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 80.0 80.0 0.0 51.4 51.4
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 120.0 120.0 0.0 83.7 83.7
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 67.5 67.5
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 80.0 80.0 0.0 51.4 51.4
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 120.0 120.0 0.0 83.7 83.7
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 67.5 67.5
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 80.0 80.0 0.0 51.4 51.4
HYD2 1 2002 120.0 0.0 120.0 120.0 0.0 83.7 83.7
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 220.0 220.0 0.0 156.1 156.1
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 180.0 180.0 0.0 114.4 114.4
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 260.0 260.0 0.0 198.0 198.0
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 220.0 220.0 0.0 156.1 156.1
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 180.0 180.0 0.0 114.4 114.4
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 260.0 260.0 0.0 198.0 198.0
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 220.0 220.0 0.0 156.1 156.1
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 180.0 180.0 0.0 114.4 114.4
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 260.0 260.0 0.0 198.0 198.0
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 220.0 220.0 0.0 156.1 156.1
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 180.0 180.0 0.0 114.4 114.4
HYD2 2 2005 313.4 0.0 260.0 260.0 0.0 198.0 198.0
0

Figure 6.5. (page 2) CONGEN printout for a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem.

99
Variable system description (from VARSYS file).
WASP COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE

CONGEN MODULE

CASE STUDY

Demonstration Case (Fixed Expansion)

**************************************
* *
* LIST OF VAR. EXPAN. CANDIDATES *
* *
**************************************
* THERMAL PLANTS *
* *
* [Link] NAME *
* 1 V-CC *
* 2 VLG1 *
* 3 VLG2 *
* 4 VCOA *
* 5 NUCL *
* *
**************************************
* HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS *
* *
* [Link] NAME *
* 6 HYD1 *
* 7 HYD2 *
* *
**************************************

ECON. L.O. = ECONOMIC LOADING ORDER DEFINED IN ASCENDING ORDER OF TOTAL FULL LOAD UNIT GENERATION COSTS
TOTAL FLD = TOTAL FULL LOAD UNIT GENERATION COSTS

FIXED SYSTEM :
*****************
ECON. L.O. 7 4 6 3 5 8

TOTAL FLD 15.46 15.56 20.89 23.50 26.16 30.93

VARIABLE SYSTEM :
*****************
ECON. L.O. 13 12 10 9 11

TOTAL FLD 5.29 24.81 26.69 27.40 36.96

COMBINED SYSTEM :
*****************
ECON. L.O. 13 7 4 6 3 12 5 10 9 8 11

TOTAL FLD 5.29 15.46 15.56 20.89 23.50 24.81 26.16 26.69 27.40 30.93 36.96

NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. IS 50

INDEX READ 4
INDEX READ 8
INDEX READ 2
INDEX READ 1
CONDITIONS GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE GENERATION * * * * * * YEAR 1998 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MINIMUM REQUIRED OF EACH ALTERNATIVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL EACH ALTERNATIVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RESERVE RANGE PERMITTED IN CRITICAL PERIOD (%) 15.00 50.00
CALCULATION OF CRITICAL PERIOD IS BASED ON HYDRO CONDITION 1

TOTAL CAPAC. PERIOD

PER IN FIXSYS --- THERMAL HYDRO 1 HYDRO 2 --- PEAK LOAD
1 6895.0 5533.0 1175.0 187.0 5400.0
2 6905.0 5533.0 1185.0 187.0 5220.0
3 6935.0 5533.0 1215.0 187.0 5580.0
4 6965.0 5533.0 1245.0 187.0 6000.0
CRITICAL PERIOD IS 4
CAPACITY RANGE IN CRITICAL PERIOD IS 6900.0 9000.0
COMMITTED CAPACITY SPECIFIED IN CRIT PERIOD 6965.0

MINIMUM NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. CORRESPONDING TO MAXIMUM RESERVE MARGIN IN CRIT PER IS 5

STATE IC CAP ACCEPTED CONFIGURATION

1 1 6965. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONFIGURATIONS THIS YEAR 1
CONFIGURATIONS THROUGH THIS YEAR 1
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * END OF YEAR 1998 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Figure 6.5. (page 3) CONGEN printout for a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem. Cover page,
economic loading order for FIXSYS/VARSYS thermal plants, and results for the year 1998.

100
7 33 2004 4 6 3 HYD1 HYD2 0.55 0.55 0.4500 0.3000 0.2500 0.0000 0.0000 0
FLG1 3 150. 270. 3300. 2850. 600. 0. 1 10 10.0 56 280. 4.06 4.90
FLG2 9 150. 276. 2900. 2550. 495. 0. 2 10 8.9 56 280. 1.91 2.00
FCOA 2 400. 580. 2800. 2300. 800. 0. 3 10 8.0 48 600. 2.92 5.00
FOIL 7 80. 145. 2450. 2150. 0. 833. 4 10 7.3 42 140. 4.57 1.60
F-GT 4 50. 50. 3300. 3300. 420. 0. 5 0 6.0 42 50. 8.35 1.60
F-CC 3 87. 174. 2048. 2048. 0. 1266. 6 0 15.0 28 180. 2.10 5.00
6191. 0. 810. 2484. 1160. 1015. 200. 522. 0. 0. 0. 4 3

NAMH NCH JAV CMWI CMWB CMWP CMWC CEM CEP CEA
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 325.0 325.0 0.0 135.0 135.0
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 295.0 295.0 0.0 115.0 115.0
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 350.0 350.0 0.0 170.1 170.1
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 325.0 325.0 0.0 135.0 135.0
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 295.0 295.0 0.0 115.0 115.0
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 350.0 350.0 0.0 170.1 170.1
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 325.0 325.0 0.0 135.0 135.0
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 295.0 295.0 0.0 115.0 115.0
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 350.0 350.0 0.0 170.1 170.1
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 325.0 325.0 0.0 135.0 135.0
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 295.0 295.0 0.0 115.0 115.0
HYD1 4 2004 400.0 0.0 350.0 350.0 0.0 170.1 170.1
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 342.0 342.0 0.0 185.8 185.8
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 300.0 300.0 0.0 138.6 138.6
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 371.0 371.0 0.0 237.7 237.7
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 342.0 342.0 0.0 185.8 185.8
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 300.0 300.0 0.0 138.6 138.6
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 371.0 371.0 0.0 237.7 237.7
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 342.0 342.0 0.0 185.8 185.8
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 300.0 300.0 0.0 138.6 138.6
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 371.0 371.0 0.0 237.7 237.7
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 342.0 342.0 0.0 185.8 185.8
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 300.0 300.0 0.0 138.6 138.6
HYD2 3 2004 386.4 0.0 371.0 371.0 0.0 237.7 237.7
2004

INDEX READ 4
INDEX READ 2
INDEX READ 1
CONDITIONS GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE GENERATION * * * * * * YEAR 2004 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MINIMUM REQUIRED OF EACH ALTERNATIVE 3 1 0 1 0 2 1
MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL EACH ALTERNATIVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RESERVE RANGE PERMITTED IN CRITICAL PERIOD (%) 20.00 40.00
CALCULATION OF CRITICAL PERIOD IS BASED ON HYDRO CONDITION 1

TOTAL CAPAC. PERIOD

PER IN FIXSYS --- THERMAL HYDRO 1 HYDRO 2 --- PEAK LOAD
1 6858.0 6191.0 325.0 342.0 7473.8
2 6858.0 6191.0 325.0 342.0 7224.7
3 6858.0 6191.0 325.0 342.0 7722.9
4 6858.0 6191.0 325.0 342.0 8304.2
CRITICAL PERIOD IS 4
CAPACITY RANGE IN CRITICAL PERIOD IS 9965.1 11625.9
COMMITTED CAPACITY SPECIFIED IN CRIT PERIOD 10318.0
MINIMUM NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. CORRESPONDING TO MAXIMUM RESERVE MARGIN IN CRIT PER IS 4

STATE IC CAP ACCEPTED CONFIGURATION

7 1 10318. 3 1 0 1 0 2 1
CONFIGURATIONS THIS YEAR 1
CONFIGURATIONS THROUGH THIS YEAR 7
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * END OF YEAR 2004 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Figure 6.5. (page 4) CONGEN printout for a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem.
Fixed system description and results for the year 2004.

101
LIST OF # OF CONFIGURATIONS PER YEAR

YEAR #C #CCUM
1998 1 1
1999 1 2
2000 1 3
2001 1 4
2002 1 5
2003 1 6
2004 1 7
2005 1 8
2006 1 9
2007 1 10
2008 1 11
2009 1 12
2010 1 13
2011 1 14
2012 1 15
2013 1 16
2014 1 17
2015 1 18
2016 1 19
2017 1 20
TOTAL 20

Figure 6.5. (page 5) COGEN printout of a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem. List of
number of configurations generated by CONGEN Run-1.

6.3.3. Input data for dynamic expansion plans

Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 describe the first CONGEN run for the sample problem which
corresponds to a fixed expansion plan of DEMOCASE for which CONGEN was not actually
used as an alternative configuration generator but, rather, to set up the EXPANALT file to be
used by MERSIM (and DYNPRO), and to evaluate a predetermined expansion plan generated
by the user. In addition, such a run (or runs) permitted to verify that the files created by
Modules 1 to 3 include the intended information and that the data records used in CONGEN
input file are correct. This section concentrates on a discussion of the input data required for
dynamic expansion plans (or variable expansion plans) in which CONGEN is used to generate
all alternative configurations which will satisfy the user-imposed constraints on reserve margins
and the number of units (or projects) of each expansion candidate.

Section [Link] discusses the input data for the first of such dynamic expansion plans (referred
to as CONGEN Run-2), and Section [Link] the input data for the last of a series of runs
(referred to as CONGEN Run-3) made while searching for the optimal solution for the
expansion of the hypothetical system represented by the sample problem DEMOCASE. The
corresponding printouts for these two CONGEN runs are discussed in Section 6.3.4.

102
6.3.4. Input data for the first dynamic expansion plan (CONGEN Run-2)

Figure 6.6 shows the input data prepared for the first variable expansion CONGEN run of the
sample problem. The first data record is a record specifying the title of the study and the
printing option for the FIXSYS and VARSYS files read by CONGEN, which in this case has
been set to 0 so as to reduce the printout for the run. (Note that the [Link] and
[Link] files have already been checked while executing the fixed expansion
CONGEN run or runs).

The second input line in Fig. 6.6 is a type-1 INDEX=4 record followed by a type-4 record
specifying the minimum and maximum reserve margins (in % of peak load) in the critical
period. The minimum and maximum reserve margin requirements should be set so that those
configurations with a capacity outside this range will not be "accepted" by CONGEN. This will
allow saving computer time in the execution of Modules 4 to 6, and eliminating from the
economic comparison those system configurations considered to be not competitive7. In the
sample problem, since this is the first variable expansion CONGEN run, the minimum and
maximum reserve margins have been set to 15% and 50% respectively, for first few years of
study and changed to 20% and 40% later (2004) in order not to eliminate too many
configurations8. (The number of accepted configurations is kept reduced in the sample run by
means of the constraints on the number of sets or projects of the expansion candidates).
The following group of lines includes a type-1 INDEX=8 record, followed by one type-8
record telling the computer that the reserve margins of the configurations are to be calculated
for the selected hydro-condition 1.
The next input line is a type-1 INDEX=2 record. This is followed by a type-2 record which
indicates the minimum number of sets (or projects) of each VARSYS plant that can be
contained in the configurations for this year. In the sample problem, no set or project from the
VARSYS candidates is required beyond those in FIXSYS in 1998. Thus, the type-2 record
gives a zero for all expansion candidates.
The subsequent two lines in Fig. 6.6 are a type-1 INDEX=3 record and a type-3 record, which
are used to specify the maximum number of expansion candidate units (or projects) permitted in
addition to the minimum number required (given on the type-2 record above). The type-3
record, in other words, shows the "tunnel width" for the year. This is usually a number between
0 and 2; otherwise there would be too many configurations (possible combinations of all
alternatives allowed) generated. This, in turn, will increase the computer time required for
execution of modules 5 and 6. In the sample problem, the tunnel width in 1998 is held to zero
for all VARSYS candidates. Finally, the last line for this year is a type-1 INDEX=1 record (the
information in cols. 16-28 of the record is not read by the computer) instructing the computer to
carry out the calculations for this year.

7
Too low reserve margins will lead to system configurations with LOLP considerably greater than the
maximum allowed (i.e. not technically acceptable) whereas too high reserve margins will lead to system
configurations having excessive installed capacity (i.e. not economically competitive).
8
The reserve margins for variable expansion CONGEN runs of a WASP-IV study must be carefully selected by
the user after having executed several fixed expansion CONGEN runs, and applying past experience on
"acceptable" reserve margins for the power system under study, in order not to reject those configurations
which might represent the optimal solution for the expansion planning study. By looking at the output of the
first variable expansion run, one can usually estimate what the reserve range for a case study should be. As
the plant sizes in the system become larger, the reserve margin necessary for an acceptable LOLP also
increases; thus, the reserve margin requirements should be future-oriented.

103
The input for the next two years of study (1999, 2000) contains identical records for minimum
number of expansion candidate units/projects and tunnel width as for 1998 since it has been
assumed that no addition of new capacity will be possible in these years also.
The data for 4th year (2001) begin with a type-1 INDEX=3 record followed by a type-3 record.
This opens the tunnel width to "2" for the VARSYS plant number 1 (V-CC), while that for all
the remaining candidates is kept constant to "0". The subsequent line is a type-1 INDEX=1
record, indicating end of input data for the year. Since no other type of data record was used for
this year, all other constraints which were specified for the preceding year are still applicable for
this year.
It may be pointed out that while preparing the input for the first dynamic (variable) expansion
run of CONGEN, a general rule can be applied: tunnel width for each expansion candidate may
be opened by introducing type-3 record to the input of the fixed expansion run, and while doing
this, the number of units (projects) specified on type-2 record of the fixed expansion run may be
reduced by one and a tunnel width of two may be opened for the respective candidate(s).
However, the physical limits on allowing additional units (projects) should be respected, e.g. if
only one additional hydro or P-S project is available in a year then maximum allowed additional
number would be one for that year (obey year of availability).
Following the above rule, the remaining input data in Fig. 6.6 define constraints in the
expansion schedule up to the last year of the study (2017) by means of the corresponding
records type-1 INDEX=2 (and/or INDEX=3), each one followed by the respective record type-2
(and/or type-3), introducing changes to the minimum required number of sets or projects
(and/or to the tunnel width) for each expansion candidate in the applicable year. In each case, a
record type-1 INDEX=1 is used to indicate end of input information for the year.
As illustrated in this CONGEN run, groups of a type-1 INDEX=2 and a type-2 records and a
type-1 INDEX=3 and a type-3 records may be used for any year in order to direct the area of
optimization. However, the changes made by these records must be introduced with care in
order to allow the possibility of transition from one year to the next. In this respect, the
following rules should be kept in mind:
Each number included in the new type-2 should be greater than, or equal to the respective
number on the last type-2 record previously used for the preceding years.
The sum of the numbers given in the type-2 and type-3 records for each expansion candidate
should always be greater than, or equal to, the sum of the respective numbers applicable for the
preceding year.
It should be mentioned here that the selection of adequate values to be used as minimum
required number of sets (type-2 record) and tunnel widths (type-3 record) for the first variable
expansion plan of a WASP case study usually involves execution of several CONGEN runs
until a satisfactory number of configurations is obtained for each year, without exceeding the
program capabilities (500 per year and 5000 in a single run).
For the first of such runs it is convenient to make some hand calculations of the capacity
involved and required additions on a year-by-year basis. The screening curve approach (see
Section 10.2) may also be useful in the determination of the first guess as to the preferred
candidates and the total capacity of each plant to be accepted each year. Furthermore, the series
of fixed expansion runs of CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO may help the user in the selection of
the starting point for the variable optimization. In the case of the sample problem, the first
variable expansion run of CONGEN was determined after three runs of the program for several
changes in the definitions of type-2 and type-3 records from year to year.

104
The use of constraints on the number of sets or projects of the expansion candidates that can be
contained in system configurations for the year permits the user to direct the area of study
towards the range of configurations which are believed to be the most economical for the power
system under study. Later, the report of the DYNPRO module will tell the user if any of the
restrictions imposed in the current CONGEN run acted as a constraint on the solution found. If
this is the case, the user can simply redefine these restrictions and perform a new optimization
iteration (a new variable expansion plan) involving sequential runs of Modules 4 to 6 in the
same order (CONGEN - MERSIM - DYNPRO). This procedure would continue until the user
found a solution which was free of user-imposed constraints. Chapter 8 describes how to
proceed in order to obtain the optimal solution free of user-imposed constraints.
Demonstration Case (Variable Expansion) 0
4
15. 50.
8
1
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 1998)
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 1999)
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2000)
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2001)
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
2 2 0 2 0 0 1
1 (END OF YEAR 2002)
2
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
2 2 0 2 0 1 1
1 (END OF YEAR 2003)
4
20. 40.
2
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
2 2 0 2 0 2 1
1 (END OF YEAR 2004)
2
2 1 0 0 0 1 1
3
2 2 0 2 0 1 1
1 (END OF YEAR 2005)
2
2 1 0 1 0 2 1
3
2 2 0 2 1 0 1
1 (END OF YEAR 2006)
2
2 1 0 2 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 1 0 0

Figure 6.6. (page1) CONGEN (Run-2) input data for the first variable expansion for the
sample problem (DEMOCASE).

105
 1 (END OF YEAR 2007)
2
2 1 0 2 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 1 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2008)
2
2 1 0 3 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 1 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2009)
2
2 1 1 4 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 1 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2010)
2
2 1 2 4 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2011)
2
2 1 2 5 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2012)
2
2 2 3 6 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2013)
2
2 2 4 7 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2014)
2
2 2 4 7 1 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2015)
2
2 3 4 8 1 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2016)
2
2 3 5 8 2 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2017)

Figure 6.6. (page 2) CONGEN (Run-2) input data for the first variable expansion for the
sample problem (DEMOCASE).

6.3.5. Input data for the last dynamic expansion plan (CONGEN Run-3)

Before discussing the last dynamic expansion plan for the case example, it is necessary to
discuss the rules set up for the determination of the optimal solution. These take into account

106
other issues rather than the pure economic ones, based on planning guidelines and regulations
applicable to the hypothetical country and power system under study. They include the
following:
No more than 4 units of the expansion candidate number 1 (V-CC) are to be included in the
reference optimal solution to reflect energy policies of the hypothetical country relating to the
use of natural gas for power generation.
A maximum of 4 nuclear power plants can be introduced during the study period, starting
from the year 2006.
With these rules in mind, several variable expansion runs were performed for the
DEMOCASE. Figure 6.7 illustrates the input data used for the last variable expansion
CONGEN run (CONGEN Run-3). It can be seen in this figure that the first 20 lines (up to
year 2001) are all identical to the respective records used for CONGEN Run-2. Thus, all
constraints imposed for the years 1998-2001, in this run, are exactly the same as in CONGEN
Run-2.
From year 2002 onwards, however, the constraints on reserve margins or on expansion
schedule differ from the ones imposed in CONGEN Run-2. For example, the first input line
for this year is type-1 INDEX=2 record followed by type-2 record to specify the "minimum
configuration" for year 2002. Based on various iterations, it was found that the first expansion
candidate (V-CC) was favoured and more units of this type were required by the system. This
was allowed in the CONGEN Run-3 by introducing one unit as the minimum configuration
and allowing two more in the tunnel width. The tunnel widths for all candidates in this year
are identical in the two runs. Note that the tunnel width of candidate number 5 (NUCL) is
maintained to zero taken into consideration that this plant requires 7 years of construction
time. Similarly, the tunnel width of candidate number 6 (HYD1) is also zero since the first
hydro project of this type (VHY2) is available for expansion in year 2003. The usual type-1
INDEX=1 record is used to indicate end of input information for the year.
The remaining records in Fig. 6.7 define constraints on the expansion schedule up to the last
year of study. All changes introduced in the constraints for expansion schedule and reserve
margins are the result of interpreting the messages given in the printout of Module 6, after
several dynamic expansion plans (7 in the case of the sample problem DEMOCASE) had
been executed. Chapter 8 describes how to interpret the messages in the DYNPRO printout
and to proceed to a new dynamic optimization iteration of WASP modules 4 to 6. As
explained earlier, the use of reserve margin constraints helps reducing the number of
configurations, thus reducing considerably the computer time required for execution of these
modules as explained in Chapters 7 and 8.
On the other hand, the values of the minimum and maximum reserve margins to be used in
any variable expansion CONGEN run must be carefully selected by the user in order not to
reject any configuration which has been found economically competitive during the
optimization process. By moving the reserve margins in one direction or another, the user is
able to focus the area of interest for the next optimization run. Nevertheless, such moves have
to be made with great care and the results of CONGEN be revised accordingly. In this
revision, it is important to ensure that sufficient competition exists between the alternative
expansion candidates and that no shortcuts are being imposed by the user. For example, too
narrow gaps between the minimum and maximum reserve margins may lead to a DYNPRO
solution free of messages that is far from the optimum even if the tunnel widths in CONGEN
are wide open. This can be found out by reviewing the CONGEN output, where most
probably the number of configurations in one or several years is too low or the possible
expansion paths can follow only one single configuration in a given year.

107
Demonstration Case (Variable Expansion) 0
4
15. 50.
8
1
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 1998)
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 1999)
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2000)
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2001)
2
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
3
2 2 0 2 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2002)
2
2 0 0 0 0 1 1
3
2 2 0 2 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2003)
4
20. 40.
2
2 0 0 0 0 2 1
3
2 2 0 2 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2004)
2
2 0 0 0 0 2 2
3
2 2 0 2 0 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2005)
2
2 0 0 0 0 2 2
3
2 2 0 2 1 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2006)
2
2 0 0 1 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 1 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2007)
2
2 0 0 2 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 1 0 0

Figure 6.7. (page1)CONGEN (Run-3) Input data for the last variable expansion for the
sample problem (DEMOCASE).

108
 1 (END OF YEAR 2008)
2
2 0 0 3 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 1 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2009)
2
2 0 0 4 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 1 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2010)
2
2 0 0 4 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2011)
2
2 0 0 5 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2012)
2
2 0 1 6 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2013)
2
2 0 3 7 0 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2014)
2
2 0 4 7 1 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2015)
2
2 0 4 8 1 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2016)
2
2 0 5 8 2 2 2
3
2 2 2 2 2 0 0
1 (END OF YEAR 2017)

Figure 6.7. CONGEN (Run-3) Input data for the last variable expansion for the sample
problem (DEMOCASE).

109
6.3.6. Printouts for dynamic expansion plans

When clicking View CONGEN Output button in the main screen CONGEN, the
[Link] file is displayed. The CONGEN printouts for the variable expansion runs,
using the data listed in Fig. 6.6 and 6.7, are essentially the same as for fixed expansion runs
(see Section 6.3.2) with some differences. Firstly, since the file printing option (IOFILE)
chosen for variable expansion runs was "0," the printouts do not include the listing of the
information on the FIXSYS and VARSYS files. Secondly, variable expansion runs usually
include more than one configuration per year as can be seen in Figures 6.8 and 6.9.

Figure 6.8 shows a sample of the printout produced by CONGEN for the first variable
expansion run (using the data of Fig. 6.6) and Figure 6.9 of the one produced for the last
variable expansion run (using the data of Fig. 6.7) of our DEMOCASE. The printout for some
typical years (1998 and 2002) is shown in each figure.

As can be seen in both figures, the printout for the year reports the data on capacities and the
conditions governing acceptance of the configurations, along with the number of the critical
period, and the minimum number of Fourier coefficients corresponding to the maximum
reserve capacity margin in the critical period.

The printout for the year continues with the list of accepted configurations in the year. Here
again, STATE is the number of the configuration as counted from the first year of study, IC is
the configuration number within the year, CAP is the installed capacity in the critical period,
and finally under ACCEPTED CONFIGURATION each configuration is identified by the
number of sets or projects of each expansion candidate considered.

Both figures show also the total number of "accepted" configurations which were generated in
the run (1363 for CONGEN Run-2, and 566 for CONGEN Run-3). This listing appears
immediately after the printout for the last year of study under the header LIST OF # OF
CONFIGURATIONS PER YEAR. It summarizes the number of total accepted configurations
per year.

Before proceeding to execute the runs for the subsequent WASP-IV modules, the user should
revise very carefully the printout for the current CONGEN run in order to make sure that the
intended configurations are included in the [Link] file created by this run, and that
no error (or warning) messages appear in the printout. Section 6 of Chapter 13 discusses the
error and warning messages applicable to CONGEN.

110
NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. IS 50
INDEX READ 4
INDEX READ 8
INDEX READ 2
INDEX READ 3
INDEX READ 1
CONDITIONS GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE GENERATION * * * * * * YEAR 1998 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MINIMUM REQUIRED OF EACH ALTERNATIVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL EACH ALTERNATIVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RESERVE RANGE PERMITTED IN CRITICAL PERIOD (%) 15.00 50.00
CALCULATION OF CRITICAL PERIOD IS BASED ON HYDRO CONDITION 1
TOTAL CAPAC. PERIOD
PER IN FIXSYS --- THERMAL HYDRO 1 HYDRO 2 --- PEAK LOAD
1 6895.0 5533.0 1175.0 187.0 5400.0
2 6905.0 5533.0 1185.0 187.0 5220.0
3 6935.0 5533.0 1215.0 187.0 5580.0
4 6965.0 5533.0 1245.0 187.0 6000.0
CRITICAL PERIOD IS 4
CAPACITY RANGE IN CRITICAL PERIOD IS 6900.0 9000.0
COMMITTED CAPACITY SPECIFIED IN CRIT PERIOD 6965.0
MINIMUM NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. CORRESPONDING TO MAXIMUM RESERVE MARGIN IN CRIT PER IS 5
STATE IC CAP ACCEPTED CONFIGURATION

1 1 6965. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONFIGURATIONS THIS YEAR 1
CONFIGURATIONS THROUGH THIS YEAR 1
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * END OF YEAR 1998 * * * * * * * * * * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDEX READ 2
INDEX READ 3
INDEX READ 1
CONDITIONS GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE GENERATION * * * * * * YEAR 2002 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MINIMUM REQUIRED OF EACH ALTERNATIVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL EACH ALTERNATIVE 2 2 0 2 0 0 1
RESERVE RANGE PERMITTED IN CRITICAL PERIOD (%) 15.00 50.00
CALCULATION OF CRITICAL PERIOD IS BASED ON HYDRO CONDITION 1
TOTAL CAPAC. PERIOD
PER IN FIXSYS --- THERMAL HYDRO 1 HYDRO 2 --- PEAK LOAD
1 7128.0 6461.0 325.0 342.0 6746.8
2 7128.0 6461.0 325.0 342.0 6521.9
3 7128.0 6461.0 325.0 342.0 6971.7
4 7128.0 6461.0 325.0 342.0 7496.5
CRITICAL PERIOD IS 4
CAPACITY RANGE IN CRITICAL PERIOD IS 8620.9 11244.7
COMMITTED CAPACITY SPECIFIED IN CRIT PERIOD 7128.0
MINIMUM NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. CORRESPONDING TO MAXIMUM RESERVE MARGIN IN CRIT PER IS 5

STATE IC CAP ACCEPTED CONFIGURATION

6 1 8888. 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
7 2 8908. 2 0 0 1 0 0 0
8 3 9188. 2 1 0 1 0 0 0
9 4 8868. 1 2 0 1 0 0 0
10 5 9468. 2 2 0 1 0 0 0
11 6 8888. 1 0 0 2 0 0 0
12 7 9488. 2 0 0 2 0 0 0
13 8 9168. 1 1 0 2 0 0 0
14 9 9768. 2 1 0 2 0 0 0
15 10 9448. 1 2 0 2 0 0 0
16 11 10048. 2 2 0 2 0 0 0
17 12 8708. 2 1 0 0 0 0 1
18 13 8988. 2 2 0 0 0 0 1
19 14 9008. 2 0 0 1 0 0 1
20 15 8688. 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
21 16 9288. 2 1 0 1 0 0 1
22 17 8968. 1 2 0 1 0 0 1
23 18 9568. 2 2 0 1 0 0 1
24 19 8988. 1 0 0 2 0 0 1
25 20 9588. 2 0 0 2 0 0 1
26 21 9268. 1 1 0 2 0 0 1
27 22 9868. 2 1 0 2 0 0 1
28 23 9548. 1 2 0 2 0 0 1
29 24 10148. 2 2 0 2 0 0 1
CONFIGURATIONS THIS YEAR 24
CONFIGURATIONS THROUGH THIS YEAR 29
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * END OF YEAR 2002 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Figure 6.8. (page 1) Sample of the CONGEN printout for the first variable expansion run of
the sample problem (DEMOCASE). CONGEN Run-2.

111
LIST OF # OF CONFIGURATIONS PER YEAR

YEAR #C #CCUM

1998 1 1

1999 1 2

2000 1 3

2001 2 5

2002 24 29

2003 51 80

2004 67 147

2005 49 196

2006 64 260

2007 114 374

2008 88 462

2009 70 532

2010 87 619

2011 112 731

2012 103 834

2013 137 971

2014 105 1076

2015 79 1155

2016 103 1258

2017 105 1363

TOTAL 1363

Figure 6.8. (page 2) Sample of the CONGEN printout for the first variable expansion run of
the sample problem (DEMOCASE). CONGEN Run-2. List of configurations.

112
NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. IS 50

INDEX READ 4
INDEX READ 8
INDEX READ 2
INDEX READ 3
INDEX READ 1
CONDITIONS GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE GENERATION * * * * * * YEAR 1998 * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * *
MINIMUM REQUIRED OF EACH ALTERNATIVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL EACH ALTERNATIVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RESERVE RANGE PERMITTED IN CRITICAL PERIOD (%) 15.00 50.00
CALCULATION OF CRITICAL PERIOD IS BASED ON HYDRO CONDITION 1

TOTAL CAPAC. PERIOD

PER IN FIXSYS --- THERMAL HYDRO 1 HYDRO 2 --- PEAK LOAD
1 6895.0 5533.0 1175.0 187.0 5400.0
2 6905.0 5533.0 1185.0 187.0 5220.0
3 6935.0 5533.0 1215.0 187.0 5580.0
4 6965.0 5533.0 1245.0 187.0 6000.0
CRITICAL PERIOD IS 4
CAPACITY RANGE IN CRITICAL PERIOD IS 6900.0 9000.0
COMMITTED CAPACITY SPECIFIED IN CRIT PERIOD 6965.0

MINIMUM NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. CORRESPONDING TO MAXIMUM RESERVE MARGIN IN CRIT PER
IS 5

STATE IC CAP ACCEPTED CONFIGURATION

1 1 6965. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONFIGURATIONS THIS YEAR 1
CONFIGURATIONS THROUGH THIS YEAR 1
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * END OF YEAR 1998 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Figure 6.9. (page 1) Sample of the CONGEN printout for the last variable expansion run of the
sample problem (DEMOCASE). CONGEN Run-3.

113
INDEX READ 2
INDEX READ 3
INDEX READ 1
CONDITIONS GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE GENERATION * * * * * * YEAR 2002 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MINIMUM REQUIRED OF EACH ALTERNATIVE 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL EACH ALTERNATIVE 2 2 0 2 0 0 0
RESERVE RANGE PERMITTED IN CRITICAL PERIOD (%) 15.00 50.00
CALCULATION OF CRITICAL PERIOD IS BASED ON HYDRO CONDITION 1
TOTAL CAPAC. PERIOD
PER IN FIXSYS --- THERMAL HYDRO 1 HYDRO 2 --- PEAK LOAD
1 7128.0 6461.0 325.0 342.0 6746.8
2 7128.0 6461.0 325.0 342.0 6521.9
3 7128.0 6461.0 325.0 342.0 6971.7
4 7128.0 6461.0 325.0 342.0 7496.5
CRITICAL PERIOD IS 4
CAPACITY RANGE IN CRITICAL PERIOD IS 8620.9 11244.7
COMMITTED CAPACITY SPECIFIED IN CRIT PERIOD 7828.0
MINIMUM NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. CORRESPONDING TO MAXIMUM RESERVE MARGIN IN CRIT PER IS 5

STATE IC CAP ACCEPTED CONFIGURATION

6 1 9028. 3 0 0 0 0 0 1
7 2 8708. 2 1 0 0 0 0 1
8 3 9308. 3 1 0 0 0 0 1
9 4 8988. 2 2 0 0 0 0 1
10 5 9588. 3 2 0 0 0 0 1
11 6 9008. 2 0 0 1 0 0 1
12 7 9608. 3 0 0 1 0 0 1
13 8 8688. 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
14 9 9288. 2 1 0 1 0 0 1
15 10 9888. 3 1 0 1 0 0 1
16 11 8968. 1 2 0 1 0 0 1
17 12 9568. 2 2 0 1 0 0 1
18 13 10168. 3 2 0 1 0 0 1
19 14 8988. 1 0 0 2 0 0 1
20 15 9588. 2 0 0 2 0 0 1
21 16 10188. 3 0 0 2 0 0 1
22 17 9268. 1 1 0 2 0 0 1
23 18 9868. 2 1 0 2 0 0 1
24 19 10468. 3 1 0 2 0 0 1
25 20 9548. 1 2 0 2 0 0 1
26 21 10148. 2 2 0 2 0 0 1
27 22 10748. 3 2 0 2 0 0 1
CONFIGURATIONS THIS YEAR 22
CONFIGURATIONS THROUGH THIS YEAR 27
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * END OF YEAR 2002 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LIST OF # OF CONFIGURATIONS PER YEAR

YEAR #C #CCUM
1998 1 1
1999 1 2
2000 1 3
2001 2 5
2002 22 27
2003 22 49
2004 19 68
2005 13 81
2006 17 98
2007 64 162
2008 64 226
2009 46 272
2010 46 318
2011 50 368
2012 33 401
2013 33 434
2014 33 467
2015 33 500
2016 33 533
2017 33 566
TOTAL 566

Figure 6.9. (page 2) Sample of the CONGEN printout for the last variable expansion run of
the sample problem (DEMOCASE). CONGEN Run-3.

114
 CHAPTER 7. EXECUTION OF MERSIM

To start the execution of MERSIM module the user should click the MERSIM button in the
WASP Modules screen (Fig. 2.11). The MERSIM main screen, shown in Figure 7.1, will be
displayed. As for the previous modules, this screen has the following four options:

• Enter/Modify MERSIM Input, to enter or modify data for the module;

• Execute MERSIM, to execute the module, after completing the data

entering/modifying;

• View MERSIM Output, to view or print the module output;

• Back, to return to the previous screen.

Figure 7.1. Main screen MERSIM.

7.1. Input/output files

MERSIM uses 18 input/output files during its execution. The data supplied by the user in
various input screens, as described in the next section, are converted by the Windows
interface in the input file called [Link]. Other input files used by MERSIM are
generated by the first four modules: [Link] generated by LOADSY,
[Link] and [Link] by FIXSYS, [Link] and
[Link] by VARSYS, and [Link] by CONGEN. The results of this
module are reported in four files, namely: [Link], [Link], [Link]
and [Link]. Besides these output files, MERSIM also generates the intermediate
file [Link] to store information needed by next modules. In the resimulation
mode, it produces the files [Link], [Link], [Link] for use
by REPROBAT module and the file [Link] for use by the IAEA’s model FINPLAN.
The files [Link], [Link] and [Link] are used to save the
input and output data when using the module alternatively in simulation and resimulation
modes.

7.2. Input data preparation

When choosing the Enter/Modify MERSIM Input option in the main screen MERSIM, the
input data main screen MERSIM Input Data is displayed, as in Figure 7.2.

115
 Figure 7.2. MERSIM input data main screen.

In this screen the user can enter/modify the following types of data for the first year of the
study (base year):

• printing option for FIXSYS and VARSYS information; if activated, this function adds
at the beginning of the output file [Link] the information on fixed and
variable systems;

• option to define the operation of P-S plants (see Section 12.2 for more details):

• Forced: for forced operation of P-S plants;

• Economic: for economic operation of P-S plants;

• option for group-limitation algorithm (see Section 12.1 for more details):

• Feasible Solution: after having found a feasible solution, no more strategies are
generated for the actual period;

• Optimal Solution: all strategies obtainable by moving the blocks taking role in
specific group-limitations to the end of the loading order are generated and the optimal
solution is mixed from them;

• number of Fourier coefficients to be used in the simulation for the representation of

the equivalent load duration curves (ELDCs), if it is desired to use fewer than in
LOADSY;

• option for output of simulation details:

• Minimum: only the list of the annual configurations is written in [Link] file,
while [Link] file is empty and [Link] includes only the cover page
identifying the run and some input data;

• Intermediate: in addition to the previous outputs, summary of the annual expected

generation costs (K$) by fuel type and electricity output (GWh) by plant is written in
[Link] file;

116
 • Maximum: in addition to the previous outputs, details of simulation for each
configuration, per period and per hydro-condition are written in [Link] file.

• option for calculation of spinning reserve requirements (SPNRES) of the system:

• Variable: SPNRES is calculated as a function of the largest unit capacity block

already loaded (CAP) and the period peak load (PKMW):

• SPNRES = SPNVAL ∗ CAP + PEAKF ∗ PKMW

• Multiplier coefficients SPNVAL and PEAKF are entered next;

• Constant: SPNRES is entered as a constant value (SPNRES = SPNVAL), as in Figure

7.3;

• spinning reserve contribution by hydro types A and B (percentage of the total

available capacity of composite hydro plant that will be considered as spinning
reserve);
• loading order (L.O.) instructions:
• Basic Economic LO: L.O. is calculated by MERSIM rearranging the basic economic
L.O. passed from CONGEN, in such a way as to meet the spinning reserve
requirements of the system (SPNRES);
• User Specified LO: L.O. is specified by the user in the User Specified Loading
Order window that is shown when this option is selected (Figure 7.4);
• Option for loading order calculation:
• Plant by plant: L.O. is calculated on a plant by plant basis;
• Unit by unit: L.O. is calculated on a unit by unit basis.

Figure 7.3. Constant spinning reserve requirements.

In addition, when clicking the Change Data for Future Years button the user can advance at
the MERSIM Data for Future Years screen (Figure 7.5) and when clicking the Back button
he can return to the main screen MERSIM.

117
 Figure 7.4. User-specified loading order of thermal plants.

Figure 7.5. MERSIM data for future years.

In MERSIM Data for Future Years screen one can move from the first to the last year of
the study and change for the selected year the number of Fourier coefficients to be used in the
simulation for the representation of the equivalent load duration curves (ELDCs) and the
option for output of simulation details (minimum, intermediate or maximum), as well as to
advance at subsequent screens by clicking the appropriate buttons, as follows:

• Change LO and Spinning Reserves button, to change, if necessary, from the second
year onward, the spinning reserve requirements and loading order instructions in the
screen shown in Figure 7.6;

• Change Group Limits button, to change, from the second year onward, the annual
value of a group limit and its distribution by periods of the year (Figure 7.7);

• Change Maintenance Schedule button, to change the annual maintenance schedule

of thermal units for all years, including the first year of the study period (Figure 7.8).

The screen from Fig. 7.6 contains the same fields relating to the spinning reserve
requirements for the system (SPNRES) in future years as in the main input data screen for the
base year. As far as thermal plant loading order is concerned, two other options are available:

118
 • Use previous L.O.: indicates to the program to use the L.O. from the previous year;

• New L.O.: asks for new user-specified L.O. to be entered in a pop up window similar
to that shown in Fig. 7.4 for the base year.

Figure 7.6. Spinning reserve requirements and loading order for future years.

To change the group limits for future years (Fig. 7.7) one proceed as follows:

• highlight the button Li assigned to the group-limitation i (i = 1 to 5); the program

shows its type (1 to 5), as specified in FIXSYS;

• enter the annual value of the limit in the suitable unit (kTon, Tcal or GWh) of each
type of limitation and its distribution by periods of the year.

Figure 7.7. Group limits for future years.

Thermal plant annual maintenance schedule can be changed (Fig. 7.8) as follows:

• highlight a specific plant and copy it from the general left-hand list to the right-hand
matrix, having power plants as rows and periods of the year as columns, by clicking
the right arrow control; one can also remove a plant from the right-hand matrix by
highlighting it and clicking the left arrow control;

119
 • enter the number of fixed maintenance days for each unit of thermal plant and for each
period of the year.

Figure 7.8. Maintenance schedule for future years.

Input data entered in the previous screens are converted by the user interface to the input file
[Link]. Table 7.1 includes the necessary information to decode the content of
[Link] file as well as to fill in these input data screens.

120
Table 7.1. (page 1) Input data for MERSIM module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format Comment
type1 name 2

Title of study and general options (MERSIM Input Data screen)

3
Title of study IDENT A60
Printing option for IOFILE I4 To activate the option, click in the
FIXSYS and VARSYS corresponding field of the screen (“1” in
information. [Link] file): print useful information
from [Link] and [Link] files;
To deactivate, click again (“0” in
[Link] file): no printing of files.
Options for group- IQUICK I4 Feasible Solution (“1” in [Link]
limitation algorithm. file): after having found a feasible solution,
no more strategies are generated for the actual
X period.
Optimal Solution (“0” in [Link]
file): all strategies obtainable by moving the
blocks taking role in specific group-
limitations to the end of the loading order are
generated and the optimal solution is mixed
from them.
See Section 12.1 for more details.
Output options for report IOUTGR I4 Brief (“0” in [Link] file);
of group-limitations and Detailed (“1” in [Link] file).
the strategies producing
The detailed output can be obtained only in
the mixed strategies.
“REMERSIM” mode. The brief output is
obtained in any other case.
Flag to define the IFOPS I4 Economic (“0” in [Link]
operation of P-S plants. file): economic operation of P-S
plants;
Forced (“1” in [Link] file): forced
operation of P-S plants.
See Section 12.2 for more details on forced
and economic operation of P-S plants.
Index number4 telling the 1 INDEX I4 “1” indicates that all data for the current year
computer what to do have been completed;
next. “2” indicates that one type-2 and one or more
type-2a records follow;
“4” indicates that one type-4 record follows;
“5” indicates that one type-5 record follows;
“7” indicates that one or more records (as
needed) of types 7a, 7b, 7d, 7d follow;
“8” indicates that one type-8 and several type
8a and 8b records follow;
“9” indicates that one type-9 record follows.

121
Table 7.1. (page 2) Input data for MERSIM module of WASP-IV
Input data Record type1 Fortran name Format2 Comment
Spinning reserve requirements calculation and loading order (L.O.) instructions
Loading order instruction SPNVAL F5 Loading order instructions, for which three cases are possible:
option5 and multiplier of (a) SPNVAL < 0: Fixed L.O. given as input in the User Specified
largest unit capacity block Loading Order window as base and peak blocks of thermal
already loaded (CAP) for plants: base blocks are specified by their plant order number
calculating spinning in the combined FIXSYS + VARSYS list of plants, whereas
reserve requirements. peak blocks are specified adding 1000 to that number. If a
plant has only one block of capacity (MWB=MWC), only the
base block must be specified. Hydro and P-S plants are not to
be included in the loading order list since they are handled
automatically by MERSIM. This option must be consistent
with that for parameter NOLO (NOLO = 0). Spinning reserve
requirements of the systems are ignored in this case.
(b) 0 ≤ SPNVAL ≤ 5.0: L.O. is calculated by MERSIM
rearranging the L.O. given by the user at least once in the
User Specified Loading Order window by the entire thermal
plant order number (User Specified LO choice, NOLO = 0),
or passed by CONGEN if so instructed (Basic Economic LO
choice, NOLO = -1), in such a way as to meet the variable
spinning reserve requirements (SPNRES) of the system (see
2 parameter PEAKF for SPNRES calculation).
(c) SPNVAL > 5.0: Same as case (b) described above but in this
case:
SPNRES = SPNVAL (Constant value for Spinning Reserves
Requirements).
Multiplier of period peak load PEAKF F5 Apply only for case (b) of SPNVAL. In this case:
(PKMW) for calculating SPNRES = SPNVAL * CAP + PEAKF * PKMW (Variable value
spinning reserve for Spinning Reserves Requirements).
requirements5.
Options for loading order LBASE I5 Plant by plant (“0” in [Link] file): L.O. is calculated on
calculation. a plant by plant basis;
Unit by unit (“1” in [Link] file): L.O. is calculated on a
unit by unit basis.
Loading order instructions5. NOLO I5 Basic Economic LO (“-1” in [Link] file): use the basic
economic L.O. passed from CONGEN; this option is only
applicable in the first year and for SPNVAL ≥ 0, i.e. cases (b)
and (c) of SPNVAL;
User Specified LO for first year (New L.O. for future years) (“0”
in [Link] file): L.O. is specified by the user in the
User Specified Loading Order window and is shown in type-
2a records of [Link] file;
Use Previous L.O. (“1” in [Link] file): indicates to the
program to use the L.O. from the previous year (this option is
only allowed from the second year onward, when other
variables are altered but the L.O. may remain the same).
Part (%) of the total available ISPIN(1) I5 Default = 0.
capacity of hydro plant
type A that will be
considered as spinning
reserve.
Part (%) of the total available ISPIN(2) I5 Default = 0.
capacity of hydro plant
type B that will be
considered as spinning
reserve.

122
Table 7.1. (page 3) Input data for MERSIM module of WASP-IV
Input data Recor Fortran Format2 Comment
d name
type1
User-specified plant loading 2a NORDER 12I5 User-specified plant loading order from the
order from the combined combined FIXSYS + VARSYS list of plants:
FIXSYS + VARSYS list of (a) If SPNVAL < 0: Base and peak blocks of
plants6. thermal plants must be specified individually in the
loading order: base blocks are specified by their
plant order number in the combined FIXSYS
+VARSYS list of plants, whereas peak blocks are
specified adding 1000 to that number. If a plant
has only one block of capacity (MWB=MWC),
only the base block must be specified. Hydro and
P-S plants are not to be included in the loading
order list since these plants are handled
automatically by MERSIM.
(b) If SPNVAL ≥ 0: The economic loading order
must be specified for thermal plants giving their
plant order number in the combined FIXSYS +
VARSYS list of plants. The program will
automatically dispatch base and peak blocks of the
thermal plants in order to meet the spinning
reserve requirements.
Options for output of 4 IOPT I4 Minimum (“0” in [Link] file): default
simulation details7. value, calls for minimum output (list of the
configurations) in [Link] file;
Intermediate (“1” in [Link] file): calls
for intermediate output (summary of annual costs
for each year) in [Link] file;
Maximum (“2” in [Link] file): calls for
maximum output (detail of simulation for each
configuration, per period and per hydro-condition)
in [Link] file.
Number of Fourier 5 NOCOF I4 The original LDC is represented by the constant
coefficients to be used in the term (a0) plus NOCOF cosine terms. The
simulation for the equivalent LDC is represented by the constant term
representation of the plus NOCOF cosine and sine terms. The default
equivalent load duration value is that specified in LOADSY. The
curves (ELDCs), if it is recommended value is between 20 and 50.
desired to use fewer than in
LOADSY.

Change group limits for future years8,9 (MERSIM Data for Future Years screen)
Index number of group- N I4 One of L1 ÷ L5 group-limitations in the input data
limitation to be overwritten. screen.
Index of individual period INDNEW(N) I4 = 0 in [Link] file (default): GRLIND is
group limits1. ignored;
9 = 1 in [Link] file: distribute GRLINEW
with GRLIND.
Modified value of annual GRLINEW( F10 Measured in kT, kT, kT, Tcal or GWh, depending
limit. N) on the type of limitation;
Refers to all FIXSYS + VARSYS power plants
taking role in the same limitation.
Period distribution of annual GRLIND(N,J 12F5 Ratio of GRLINEW(N) for J=1,NPER. See
value of limit. ) Section 12.1.5 for more details on default values.

123
Table 7.1. (page 4) Input data for MERSIM module of WASP-IV

Input data Record Fortran Format Comment

type1 name 2

Control maintenance schedule10 (MERSIM Data for Future Years screen)

Number of thermal plants 8a MNFNUM I5 Calculated by the user interface based on
for which the annual power plants selected from the combined
maintenance schedule is FIXSYS + VARSYS list in Maintenance
changed. schedule for future years screen. If
MNFNUM >0, MNFNUM records type-8b
follow in [Link] file.
Plant order number in the MNFUN I5 Calculated by the user interface based on
combined FIXSYS + power plant code names selected from the
VARSYS set of plants. combined FIXSYS + VARSYS list in
Maintenance schedule for future years
screen.
Number of fixed MNFGEN(J 12I4 The sum of maintenance days for all
maintenance days for each 8b ) periods should equal the number of
unit of thermal plant
MNFUN for each period J days per year for scheduled
of the annual simulation. maintenance of the respective
thermal plant specified in FIXSYS
or VARSYS;
To be considered the fact that the
periods are equal in length;
A negative number in the first period
releases the forced maintenance scheduling
of the thermal plant.
Specific input data for RESIMULATION11 (REMERSIM mode)
Domestic fuel consumption 7a C1CBL 9F8 Must be consistent with heat rates and heat
by unit12 (Ton/GWh). values entered for the respective unit in
FIXSYS and VARSYS.
Foreign fuel consumption 7b C1CBF 9F8 Must be consistent with heat rates and heat
by unit12 (Ton/GWh). values entered for the respective unit in
FIXSYS and VARSYS.
Domestic fuel stock by 7c F1SL 9F8
unit12 (Ton).
Foreign fuel stock by unit12 7d F1SF 9F8
(Ton).

Notes to Table 7.1

1. Relevant only for decoding the content of [Link] file but not for filling in input data screens.

2. See Section 2.6 for Format description.

3. Not entered by the user in the current screen. Handled by the interface.

4. Records type-1 INDEX=3 and =6 are not used.

5. The options for calculation of the loading order by MERSIM, should be treated with great care because the resulting L.O. will be
dependent on the data given by the user, not only for the involved variables: NOLO, SPNVAL, CAP, PEAKF, PKMW, but also for the
capacity blocks of the various FIXSYS and VARSYS plants and their respective ISPIN.

124
6. Record type 2a is used only for user-specified L.O. (NOLO = 0). The numbering of the plants for the simulation process is as follows: 1
and 2 are reserved for the hydro plants type A and type B (even if they do not exist). Then, the thermal plants of FIXSYS, beginning
with 3 (this number appears to the left of the thermal plant table included in the FIXSYS output). Finally, the thermal plants of
VARSYS in the same order in which they were read (beginning with the number of the last thermal plant in FIXSYS plus 1). Note:
hydroelectric and P-S plants should not be included in the loading order because they are automatically dispatched by the program.

7. As the use of maximum output option (IOPT=2), especially for variable expansion planning, imply a long computation time and
generation of a very large output file ([Link]), this option should be selected only in exceptional circumstances.

8. Record type-9 (after INDEX=9) is like record type-Ea of FIXSYS, except the first field.
9. Change of group limits for the base year, defined initially in FIXSYS, is not allowed in this screen.

10. The annual maintenance schedule of thermal plants can be controlled also for the base year in this screen.

11. Record type-1 INDEX=7 and record types 7a, 7b, 7c and 7d are used only for RESIMULATION (REMERSIM mode).
12. These input data permit separating unit fuel consumption and fuel stock into domestic and foreign components for the MERSIM and
REPROBAT reports. For results on fuel consumption to be correct, the heat rates for the respective plants (in FIXSYS and VARSYS) must
reflect the same distribution.

7.3. Sample problem

7.3.1. Input data for a fixed expansion plan (MERSIM Run-1)

Figure 7.9 lists the [Link] file for a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem,
DEMOCASE. In effect, this was the first run of module MERSIM for the sample problem,
corresponding to the predetermined expansion plan presented in Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2
(CONGEN Run-1).

Similar to other WASP-IV modules, the first record of [Link] file contains the title
of study (columns 1-60) and, in addition, the printout option (IOFILE) for [Link]
and [Link] files (column 64), the option (IQUICK) for group-limitation algorithm
(column 68), the output option (IOUTGR) for report of group-limitation results (column 72),
and option (IFOPS) for mode of operation for pumped-storage plants (column 76). The same
remarks made in Section 3.3.1 for the title of study to be used in LOADSY are also valid for
MERSIM. Since we are in the debugging phase of data records of the module, the "1" in
column 64 asks for printing of the FIXSYS and VARSYS files, the “0” in column 68 for
“slow” (optimal solution) option for group-limitation algorithm, the “1” in column 72 for
detailed output report of group-limitation results (this will be valid only for resimulation run).
The last field (73-76) is not active since there is no pumped-storage project considered in this
example.

A record type-1 with INDEX=1 is the usual end of year record telling the computer that all
data for current year have been completed and that the program can carry out the calculations
for the year. A record type-1 with INDEX=2, 4, 5, 7, 8 or 9 tells the computer that the next
record(s) to be read is (are) record(s) of type equal to the INDEX number9. Similar to the
other modules, if interruption of program execution occurs or error message(s) is (are) printed
(see Section 7 of Chapter 13) it is important to check that the proper sequence of data records
were included by the user interface in [Link] file. Each type-1 record with INDEX=2
(4, 5, 7, 8, or 9) record followed by the corresponding type of record(s) will constitute a
group. These groups may appear in any order, and will be examined by the program in the

9
A type-1 INDEX=7 record should be followed by a sequence of as many type-7a, type-7b, type-7c and
type-7d records as needed.

125
sequence read. Execution of the year starts after INDEX=1 is read independent of order of
index read.

The second input line is of type-1 INDEX=2 calling for a type-2 record to follow. The type-2
record includes the following data:

• Instructions for calculation of the loading order (SPNVAL) and, if applicable, the
value of variable PEAKF. If the spinning reserve requirements (SPNRES) of the
system are to be calculated (see Table 7.1, variable SPNVAL, for details), variables
SPNVAL and PEAKF are also used as multipliers for the largest unit capacity block
already loaded and for period peak load when calculating SPNRES;

• Loading order option (LBASE) to tell the program if the L.O. is calculated on a plant
by plant basis or on a unit by unit basis;

• Second loading order option (NOLO) to choose between basic economic L.O. passed
from CONGEN and user-specified L.O.;

• Spinning reserve of the hydro plants type A and type B, respectively. This spinning
reserve is expressed as the percentage of the total available capacity of each hydro
plant type that can be used to replace outages of the other plants in the system. This
information is required when the program is asked to calculate the loading order of the
plants (cases (b) and (c) of SPNVAL in Table 7.1) and it must be always given each
time the Change LO and Spinning Reserves button is clicked in MERSIM Data for
Future Years screen (Fig. 7.5), i.e. a new type-2 record appears in [Link]
file, regardless of the values assigned to the other variables in the screen, even if the
hydro spinning reserves (the percentages) are the same for all years of the study.

Three cases are possible for the loading order instructions (SPNVAL), as shown in Table 7.1
and they are combined with the value specified for NOLO. If SPNVAL corresponds to case
(a), the L.O. of the plants is to be given as input data in the User Specified Loading Order
window (NOLO = 0). Cases (b) and (c) for SPNVAL mean that the program has to calculate
the L.O. respecting the specified system spinning reserve requirements and following the
basic economic L.O. that is either given by the user (NOLO = 0), or passed by CONGEN
(NOLO = -1). For the first year of the study and independently of the value of SPNVAL, it is
necessary to specify either a predetermined L.O. (NOLO = 0) or the basic economic L.O.
passed by CONGEN (NOLO = -1), according to the case. Starting from the second year, a
new L.O. can be specified (NOLO = 0) or indicate to the program to use the L.O. from the
previous year (NOLO = 1).

In the sample problem SPNVAL = 1.0 and PEAKF = 0.0; this means that the spinning reserve
requirements of the system is equal in this case to the capacity of the largest block already
loaded and is not related to the period peak load. The value “0” for LBASE indicates that the
L.O. will be calculated on a plant by plant basis and “-1” in the 4th field for the value of
NOLO asks for basic economic L.O. passed from CONGEN. There is nothing in 5th and 6th
fields, indicating to the program that the hydro plants will not contribute to the spinning
reserves of the system.

The user-specified loading order, if selected, is given in the appropriate screen (Fig. 7.4) and
is included in [Link] file on the subsequent type-2a record (or records) by integer
numbers right-adjusted (format "I") in 5-columns fields using as many type-2a records as
required (12 fields per type-2a record). Each number on the record represents one of the

126
thermal plants considered in the same order in which they appear in the combined listing of
fixed-system plants and variable-system plants, with the fixed-system plants listed first. It
should be remembered that the first thermal plant in the fixed-system listing will be always
assigned number 3 since numbers 1 and 2 are reserved by the program for hydro type A and
hydro type B, respectively, even if any of these two plant types is not actually used in the case
under study. If pumped-storage plants are also present, they will take loading order number 1
and both of the hydro types will be combined and assigned number 2 in the loading order. The
hydro and pumped-storage plants are not to be included in the loading order as they are
automatically handled by the program. Inclusion of any hydro/pumped-storage plant in the
loading order will lead to interruption of program execution.

In case (a) of SPNVAL, base and peak portions of thermal plants are to be included in the
loading order, beginning with the first base-loaded plant and ending with the last peaking
plant. The base-load portion of plant capacity is indicated by the same number of the
corresponding plant from the combined list of fixed-system and variable-system plants. The
peak-load portion of capacity of the plant is indicated by adding 1000 to the integer describing
the base-load portion. Thermal plants for which MWB is equal to MWC appear only once in
the loading order indicating only the base-load portion number, i.e. no peak-load portion is
defined for these plants (Note that the plant can be operating in any portion of the load, i.e. as
base-load, peaking or intermediate load plant).

In cases (b) and (c) of SPNVAL, the thermal plants are not split into base and peak blocks and
each plant is represented only once by the same number in which they appear in the combined
listing of fixed-system and variable-system plants. The economic loading order calculated by
FIXSYS and VARSYS (see Figs. 4.9, page 4 and 5.8, page 3) are combined by CONGEN
into a single one (see Fig. 6.5, page 3) to help the user in preparing the loading order for
MERSIM.

The subsequent input line is a type-1 INDEX=4 record calling for a type-4 record to specify
the print output option. The default value ("0") calls for minimum output, and this can be
changed to "1" (intermediate output) or "2" (maximum output). A "2" on this record calls for
maximum output for the current year and all subsequent years until a new record type-4
changes this option. In the sample problem, maximum output is requested for all the years.

The input line number 6 is a type-1 INDEX=5 record. This is followed by a type-5 record
specifying the number of Fourier coefficients to be used in the simulations. The new number
of coefficients to be given in record type-5 cannot be greater than the default value, which is
set by MERSIM to the value specified in Module 1 (read by the program from the
[Link] file). In the sample problem, this number was reduced from 50 (used in
Module 1) to 25. This represents a good compromise between the accuracy of the simulations
carried out by MERSIM and the computer time required to perform them10.

The type-1 INDEX=7 record and subsequent type-7a through –7d records are not included in
[Link] file for the MERSIM Run-1 since these records are used only for resimulation
runs.

10
Selection of the adequate number of Fourier coefficients to be used in the simulation requires the execution of
several fixed expansion runs for the case study where the execution time per configuration is to be weighed
against the accuracy of the results. Of particular importance are the resulting values of LOLP and Energy not
served of the configurations.

127
For the second and subsequent years, a type-1 record with INDEX=9 can be used to change
the group-limitations, if defined in the case study. This record will be followed by one type-9
record containing information on index number of limit, the modified value of the limit and
its distribution by periods of the year. These record types are not allowed for the first year.

Next in the input data for the first year is a type-1 INDEX=1 record indicating that all data for
the first year of the study (1998) have been completed. The information in columns 16 to 28
of this record is for the convenience of the user and is not read by the computer.

The next input lines, for year 1999, consist of one type-1 INDEX=8 record followed by one
type-8a record containing 2, indicating to the program that maintenance of 2 thermal plants
will be specified, information which is given on next two type-8b records. The number “3” is
the first such thermal plant (FLG1) whose maintenance is to be scheduled for periods 3 and 4
for 30 and 26 days, respectively. Likewise, number “4” on the second type-8b record indicates
the number associated with thermal plant FLG2 and then in fields 2-5 the days of maintenance
for this plant in different periods. One can notice that the total annual maintenance duration
(56 days) is consistent with the value of MAINT parameter entered in FIXSYS module for the
two plants. The next record is a type-1 INDEX=1 record indicating the end of the input data
for year 1999.

For year 2000 it has been assumed in this sample problem that the maintenance schedule for
the same two thermal plants (number 3 and 4) is to be changed. For thermal plant number “3”
the periods for scheduling maintenance have been changed from previously specified and for
plant number “4” the earlier schedule has been cancelled (by giving -1 in the 2nd field), and
from this year onwards the program will determine the maintenance schedule for this plant
also, as it will be doing for all other thermal plants not controlled by the user through type-8
records. Again, the information in columns 16 to 28 of each type-1 with INDEX=1 record is
for the convenience of the user and is not read by the computer.

There is no change in the input for the subsequent years (2001-2017), only one type-1 with
INDEX=1 record being included for each year.

128
Demonstration Case (Fixed Expansion) 1 0 1 0
2
1.0 0 -1
4
2
5
25
1 (END OF YEAR 1998)
8
2
3 0 0 30 26
4 0 20 10 26
1 (END OF YEAR 1999)
8
2
3 0 30 26 0
4 -1
1 (END OF YEAR 2000)
1 (END OF YEAR 2001)
1 (END OF YEAR 2002)
1 (END OF YEAR 2003)
1 (END OF YEAR 2004)
1 (END OF YEAR 2005)
1 (END OF YEAR 2006)
1 (END OF YEAR 2007)
1 (END OF YEAR 2008)
1 (END OF YEAR 2009)
1 (END OF YEAR 2010)
1 (END OF YEAR 2011)
1 (END OF YEAR 2012)
1 (END OF YEAR 2013)
1 (END OF YEAR 2014)
1 (END OF YEAR 2015)
1 (END OF YEAR 2016)
1 (END OF YEAR 2017)

Figure 7.9. MERSIM input data for a fixed expansion run of the sample problem
(DEMOCASE). MERSIM Run-1.

129
7.3.2. Printout for a fixed expansion plan (MERSIM Run-1)

When clicking View MERSIM Output button in the main screen MERSIM, the MERSIM
Output screen is displayed (Figure 7.10). Three output options are available:

1 Summary of Simulated Configurations: to see the list of annual configurations written

by the module program in [Link] file. This output is available for any value
of IOPT output option (see Table 7.1).

2 Annual Summary of Results: to see the summary of annual costs written in

[Link] file. This output is available if at least Intermediate option was
chosen for IOPT.

3 Detailed Simulation Results for each Period and HC: to see details of simulation for
each configuration, per period and per hydro-condition written in [Link] file.
This output is available only if Maximum option was chosen for IOPT.

Figure 7.10. MERSIM output options screen.

Figure 7.11 illustrates the MERSIM printout for the fixed expansion plan of the sample
problem (using the data of Fig. 7.9). As the file printing option for this run was set to "1", the
first pages of output are in sequence: the description of the fuel types as read from the
FIXSYS file; the description of the Fixed System for the first year of study (1998); and the
description of the Variable System. None of these pages is shown in Fig. 7.11 since they
include the same information displayed on pages 1 and 2 of Fig. 6.5.

Page 1 of Fig. 7.11 shows part of [Link] files and contains the cover page printed by
MERSIM to identify the run. This shows the title of study and the list of the variable
expansion candidates, beginning with the thermal candidates and ending with the hydro plants
(followed by P-S, if used). Each candidate is identified by its code name (in the central
column of the list) and two sequence numbers. The number to the left corresponds to the
number of the plant in the same order as it appears in the configurations generated by
CONGEN, and the one to the right gives the number in which the plant is to be considered for
simulation purposes (i.e. the number in which the plant appears in the combined listing of
fixed-system and variable-system plants). It can be seen that hydro type A (HYD1) and type
B (HYD2) are assigned positions 1 and 2, respectively, in the simulation (special assignment
if P-S is used).

130
The middle part of the page 1 of Fig. 7.11 shows the loading order instructions given in the
input and the basic economic loading order of FIXSYS + VARSYS thermal plants passed
from CONGEN (as requested by the option NOLO in input), first with the power plants
represented by their sequence number and then by their code names. Followed by the output
option (2) and number of Fourier coefficients (25) to be used.

The lower part on page 1 of Fig. 7.11 shows the annual maintenance table of thermal plants.
This table is produced for each configuration in a year and for each hydro-condition. The
table shown on lower part of page 1 of the Fig. 7.11 is for hydro-condition 1 whose
probability is also reported (45%). The table includes the thermal plant code names and the
days of maintenance for each period. For the first year of the study all thermal plants were left
to the program to determine their maintenance schedule (the plants with zeros for all periods
in this case are not present in the system for this year).

Since the print output option was set to "2" (maximum output), the program prints the detailed
results of the simulation calculations for each period and hydro-condition in each year. The
page 2 of the figure shows these results for period 1 and hydro-condition 1 of 1998. This
starts identifying: the period, year and configuration considered; the applicable hydro-
condition and its probability. Next come the hydro-indices and hydro-spinning reserves (%);
the number of thermal plants (11 in this case) considered in the basic economic L.O. and the
basis for calculating L.O. Then follows data on the plants which are actually operating (those
with zero sets are not included). In the sample run only plants 1 through 8 (i.e. the FIXSYS
plants) are operating in 1998 since no VARSYS thermal candidate plant has been added by
the configuration considered. This is tabulated in 10 further columns reporting in sequence:
number of units, availability (%), total capacity (MW), base capacity (MW), spinning reserve
(%), spinning reserve (MW), and the derated values for total, base, and peak capacity (MW),
and spinning reserve (MW).

The calculated loading order along with the number of units being loaded in each plant, the
cumulative derated spinning reserve, cumulative derated capacity and required spinning
reserve of the system are tabulated next11.

If pumped-storage plants are present in the system, a summary of P-S operation will be
reported including the off-loading and pumping capabilities of thermal plants (for both base
and peak blocks), minimum P-S operation, and details of actual off-loading and pumping
duties of thermal plants.

Next on page 2 of Fig. 7.11 is the operational summary, which starts with identifying the
period, year, the configuration simulated and hydro-condition along with its probability. Then
data are listed for each plant in the system starting with the two composite hydro plants, if
any, followed by the thermal plants. The data for each plant are given on 16 columns of a
table under the headings of HYDROPLANTS OPERATIONAL SUMMARY and THERMAL
PLANTS OPERATIONAL SUMMARY.

The HYDROPLANTS OPERATIONAL SUMMARY table gives for each composite hydro plant
(if any) the following information: in the 1st column the number of the plant in the combined

11
Note that this loading order is the one at beginning of the simulation and therefore the peak blocks of the two
hydro plant types are set at the last position of the L.O. Their final position will be found by MERSIM and
reported as part of the tables with the operational summary.

131
listing of fixed- and variable-system plants; in the 2nd column the plant code name; in the 3rd
column the number of projects composed in the plant (FIXSYS plus VARSYS). The
remaining columns show the results of the simulation, identifying in the 4th and 5th columns
the plant number capacity block (base or peak) and the unit number of the last thermal unit
which was off-loaded by the peak capacity of the given hydro plant; in columns 6th and 7th
the base and peak capacity of the plant, and in column 8th the total capacity (sum of these
two columns) (all values in MW); columns 9th to 11th give in the same order the base, peak
and total energy generated (all in GWh) by the plant; column 12th gives the minimum
requirements of peaking energy (GWh) at the beginning of the simulation; column 13th
shows the spilled energy (if any) and column 14th the energy shortage (if any) of the plant
(both in GWh); column 15th gives the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs in thousand $
(these are considered as local costs); and the last column (16th) shows plant capacity factors
(expressed in %). Some additional comments on the meaning of the above information
follow.
Off-loading of thermal plants by the peaking capacity of hydro plants is carried out by
MERSIM as part of the simulation, trying to make use of all available hydro energy so as to
reduce the total operating costs of the system [see Ref. 13, Volume II: Appendices]. The
minimum requirements for peaking energy (column 12 of the table) correspond to the value
determined by MERSIM before the off-loading process begins; therefore, if this value is
lower than the peaking energy (column 10) of the plant, off-loading of thermal plants by this
hydro plant is possible.
Two additional cases are possible for the number reported in column 4th:
• a zero means that no off-loading of thermal plants is possible (i.e. minimum energy
requirements for peak are equal or greater than the energy available for peaking);
• asterisks indicate that no further off-loading of thermal plants can be achieved since
the peak block of the corresponding hydro plant has reached the minimum load of the
period.
Concerning the peak and total plant capacities (columns 7 and 8 of table), these values are
normally equal to the peak and total capacity of the plant which are available in the period and
hydro-condition considered. In some cases, however, these values can be lower than the
available ones. This situation occurs when the minimum energy requirements for peaking
exceed the energy available for peaking of the respective plant. In this case, MERSIM reduces
the peak capacity of the plant accordingly (see description of System Operational Summary
below):
• If column 13 of the table shows a value of energy spilled greater than 0.0 (GWh) for a
given hydro plant, it means that no more off-loading of thermal capacity can be
achieved with this plant as explained before.
• Similarly, if column 14 shows a value of energy shortage greater than 0.0 (GWh), this
means that the minimum peaking requirements exceed the available peaking energy of
the respective hydro plant. Energy shortage less than 0.0 means that surplus of energy
of one hydro plant could not be used due to shortage in energy of the other hydro
plant.
• Finally, the plant capacity factor reported in column 16 is calculated by MERSIM
dividing the total energy generated by the plant (col. 11) by the installed capacity of
the respective hydro plant and by the total hours in the period.
If pumped-storage plants are present in the system, the two hydro plant types will be merged
in type 2 (and named HYDR) and the pumped-storage plants will be represented in type 1

132
(renamed as PUMP). The information of pumped-storage plants will also be similar to that for
hydro plants and reported in the HYDROPLANTS OPERATIONAL SUMMARY.
The THERMAL PLANTS OPERATIONAL SUMMARY table is organized as follows:
Columns 1 to 3 give similar information as explained before for the hydro plants, except that
the numbers in column 3 are the number of units in the thermal plant. The 4th and 5th
columns give the unit capacities: MWB and MWC respectively. Column 6 is the total plant
capacity (col. 5 times the no. of sets in col. 3). Columns 7 to 9 are the base, peak and total
energy generated by the plant. The generation of thermal plants for which MWB=MWC
(appearing in the loading order list only once) is listed under BASE ENERGY (col. 7) even
though they actually are peak-loaded plants because here, the term "base" refers to the MWB
portion and "peak" refers to the remaining (MWC minus MWB) portion, rather than to plant
position in the loading order. Columns 10 to 11 give the plant fuel costs in local and foreign
components, and column 12 the total plant fuel costs; all values in 1000 $. Column 13 reports
the O&M costs of the plant, and column 14 the plant's maintenance probability, i.e. the
percentage of plant capacity which is accorded to maintenance in the period. Thus, the actual
available capacity of plant 3 (FLG1), discounting maintenance, is: 4 ∗ 270 ∗ (1 − 0.236) =
825.12 MW. Column 15 lists the unit equivalent forced outage rate of thermal plants and
column 16 the plant capacity factor (also referred to the installed capacity of the respective
plant) in the period and hydro-condition considered. In case, pumped-storage plants are
present in the system, the generation by thermal plants will include the generation for
pumping duty and the corresponding fuel and O&M costs.
In the operational summary tables described above, additional lines show the totals for all
hydro plants and all thermal plants, respectively, but only for the applicable information
(columns) in each case. After the totals for the thermal plants, MERSIM reports the SYSTEM
OPERATIONAL SUMMARY which lists, on the left-hand side, data on system capacities and
loads, and on the right-hand side the summary of system generation (see bottom of page 2 of
Fig. 7.11). The information on system capacities and loads starts with the summary of
thermal and hydro capacities, broken down by plant ("fuel") type. The information on plant
capacities by fuel type is followed by a summary of: total system capacity (sum of installed
capacity of thermal plants plus available hydro capacity); the peak and minimum loads of the
period; the period maintenance space (equal to the total system capacity minus period peak
load); and the actual reserve capacity subtracting from the maintenance space the capacity
under maintenance in the period.
If as a result of the simulation the capacity of any hydro plant type has been reduced by the
program (i.e. when the minimum energy requirements for peaking exceed the energy
available for peaking of the respective plant), this is shown in the summary of hydro capacity
after MW, as: RED. XXXX ==>YYYY; indicating reduction of the available capacity
(XXXX), and after the arrow the reduced value (YYYY) that was calculated in the
simulation.
The data on system generation (on the right-hand side of the system operational summary)
starts with the thermal and hydro generation, also broken down by plant ("fuel") type. The
report of energy generation by plant type is followed by: the total system generation (sum of
the energy generated by all plants in the system); energy demand of the system (as measured
from the inverted load duration curve); the unserved energy and energy balance; all values
expressed in GWh. The "unserved energy" is the value of the energy demand which cannot be
served by the system and the "energy balance" is equal to the energy generated by all plants
plus the energy-not-served minus the energy under the load duration curve. It is important that
this energy balance be a small value since this represents the accuracy of the simulation. The
last information in the system operational summary is the loss-of-load probability – LOLP

133
(%) for this period and hydro-condition. If pumped-storage plants are present in the system,
the pumped energy will also be reported.
A similar detailed output as explained before for period 1 and hydro-condition 1 is produced
by MERSIM for the same period and each of the remaining hydro-conditions (in this case the
second and third hydro-conditions). The same printout is also produced in sequence for the
remaining periods of the year (1998 in this case). This part of the printout is not shown in the
figure.
Similar results for each year of the study will be reported in the [Link] file. This file
should be studied carefully to confirm correctness of simulations.
Page 3 of Fig. 7.11 shows part of [Link] file, which reports the list of configurations
simulated in the present run for each year. This listing of configurations includes: the number
of the configuration (STATE) as it appears in the [Link] file, along with data on
the corresponding total operation costs (COST K$); the expected average annual LOLP (both
in % and in equivalent days/year) resulting from the simulation. After this information, the
configuration is also reproduced. Finally, if applicable, the program reports: the energy-not-
served (ENS GWH) for each hydro-condition (sum of energy-not-served in each period for
the same hydro-condition); and, if applicable, the hydro shortage (HY-SH GWH) and/or
hydro spillage (HY-SP GWH) per hydro-condition. LOLP and ENS are calculated by
MERSIM considering both forced outages and maintenance schedule of thermal plants, as
well as any limitations in the available hydro energy. At the end of each year, a -1 is printed to
report successful completion of the current year, and at the end of file another -1 is printed to
indicate completion of all years. The two -1 (one for the last year and the second for end of
file) are also indication of a complete successful run of MERSIM.
Since the printout option for this run was set to a value "2" (maximum output) for all years of
the study period, a summary of the yearly results for each configuration is reported in
[Link] file. A part of this file for the sample problem is shown on page 4 of Fig.
7.11. The upper part of page 4 illustrates the annual summary of the cost and reliability results
for the first configuration (1998). This lists the plant (installed) capacities and operational
costs for each plant ("fuel") type, first for the thermal fuel types and then for the composite
hydro plant types (if any), followed by the totals for the system. The summary includes also
the values of unserved energy (GWh) and the loss-of-load probability (%) for each hydro-
condition along with the expected annual value of LOLP (weighted by the hydro-conditions'
probabilities). The second type of annual summary of results reports the generation by each
power plant in the same order as the combined listing of FIXSYS and VARSYS. The results
are shown by period and for the total. This summary for year 1998 is shown at the bottom part
of page 4.
If group-limitations are imposed on the system, then MERSIM will produce a report file
([Link]) for printing results of these limitations. This file will contain detailed
results for a RESIMULATION run (if the appropriate option is selected in the input). Page 5
of Fig. 7.11 shows a part of this file for the fixed expansion run of the sample problem. In this
case, four group-limitations were imposed on some of the thermal plants in the system (see
FIXSYS and VARSYS chapters). As shown on page 5 of Fig. 7.11, the printout starts with
reporting of thermal plants taking role in group-limitations: the group-limitation sequence
number, its measure index and the code names of all plants in each group-limitation are
printed. Then the configuration simulated is reported and after that year, period, hydro-
condition, number of strategies generated and the number of strategies used (mixed for
determining optimal dispatch of plant) are printed. These are reported for each configuration
simulated for each year, each period and each hydro-condition. In our sample problem, for
example, 43 strategies for period 1, hydro-condition 1 in year 1998, were generated by the

134
program by re-arranging the loading order and an optimal dispatch policy was determined by
mixing two of these so that all the group-limitations are satisfied (see Chapter 12 for technical
details). The detailed results of these strategies can be obtained by running the MERSIM in
the REMERSIM mode (as shown in Section 7.3.5).
It can be realized that the amount of information printed by the computer for printout options
different to "0" is quite large. Thus, it is recommended to use the intermediate and maximum
output options with special care. Maximum output option may be used for some years in the
input debugging phase of the MERSIM runs or when a detailed output of a fixed expansion
schedule is required. Intermediate output may be asked for when only a few configurations
are included in the last current [Link] file. However, during the optimization
process, when a series of dynamic expansion plans are examined, only minimum output for
each year should be requested.
A variety of error messages may appear in the MERSIM printout. Some of these errors can be
detected by careful perusal of the printout. The maintenance space, for example, should not be
negative (installed capacity less than peak demand). If capacity factors exceed 100% or if the
energy balance (or the unserved energy) is very large, something is clearly wrong but just
what it is may not be so obvious. During program execution, MERSIM verifies the validity of
some input data and the compatibility of the information of the files called upon by the
program, and in case of an "error" the execution of the program will be stopped and a
message is reported in the printout. Section 7 of Chapter 13 describes the error and warning
messages for the MERSIM module.

135
 WASP COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
MERSIM MODULE
CASE STUDY
Demonstration Case (Fixed Expansion)
******************************************************
* *
* LIST OF VARIABLE EXPANSION CANDIDATES *
* *
******************************************************
* THERMAL PLANTS *
* *
* [Link] NAME [Link] *
* CONFIGURATION IN SIMULATION *
* 1 V-CC 9 *
* 2 VLG1 10 *
* 3 VLG2 11 *
* 4 VCOA 12 *
* 5 NUCL 13 *
* *
******************************************************
* HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS *
* *
* [Link] NAME [Link] *
* CONFIGURATION IN SIMULATION *
* 6 HYD1 1 *
* 7 HYD2 2 *
* *
******************************************************
FILE 12 (LOADS) SUCCESSFULLY OPENED
FILE 13 (CONFIGURATIONS) SUCCESSFULLY OPENED
INDEX READ = 2 YEAR 1998
LOADING ORDER INPUT DATA:

LOADING ORDER CONTROL DATA : SPNVAL PEAKF LBASE NOLO ISPIN-1 ISPIN-2
1.0 0.0 0 -1 0 0
LOADING ORDER CALCULATED ON A PLANT BASIS
CALCULATED LOADING ORDER BASED ON THE ECONOMIC L.O. PASSED FROM CONGEN
NORDER
13 7 4 6 3 12
5 10 9 8 11
************************************ L O A D I N G O R D E R ************************************

NUCL F-GT FLG2 FOIL FLG1 VCOA

FCOA VLG1 V-CC F-CC VLG2

***************************************************************************************************
INDEX READ = 4 YEAR 1998
IOPT = 2
INDEX READ = 5 YEAR 1998
NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. USED IN THIS SIMULATION 25
YEAR 1998 CONFIGURATION SIMULATED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HYDRO CONDITION 1 PROBABILITY 45.0 %
************************************* ANNUAL MAINTENANCE TABLE OF THERMAL PLANTS
********************************
THERMAL
PLANT PERIODS / DAYS OF MAINTENANCE
NAME
1 2 3 4
3 FLG1 21.4 14.3 14.3 5.9
4 FLG2 21.4 14.3 14.3 5.9
5 FCOA 0.0 48.0 0.0 0.0
6 FOIL 4.3 12.6 12.6 12.6
7 F-GT 0.0 22.8 19.1 0.0
8 F-CC 0.0 28.2 0.0 0.0
9 V-CC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 VLG1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
11 VLG2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
12 VCOA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13 NUCL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure 7.11. (page 1) MERSIM printout for a fixed expansion run of the sample problem.
MERSIM Run-1. Cover page, input information for 1998 and annual maintenance table
([Link] file).

136
PERIOD1 OF YEAR 1998 CONFIGURATION SIMULATED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HYDROCONDITION 1 PROBABILITY 45.0 %

HYDRO INDICES 1,2

% [Link] OF AVAIL. HYDRO CAP. 0 0
PLANTS IN BASIC L.O. 11
L. O. OPTION 0
PEAKLOAD FACTOR (PEAKF) 0.0000
SPINNING RESERVE (SPNVAL * [Link] CAP. + PEAKF * PKMW) = 1.000 * CAP + ( 0.0 )
PLANT UNIT AVLBTY CAP BASE SPIN. SPIN. - - - - - - DERATED - - - - - -
RES RES TOTAL BASE PEAK SPINNING
% MW MW % MW CAP(MW) CAP(MW) CAP(MW) RES(MW)

1 3 100.0 1650.0 0.0 0 0.0 1175.0 210.0 965.0 0.0

2 2 100.0 206.4 0.0 0 0.0 187.0 0.0 187.0 0.0
3 4 90.0 206.4 114.6 10 20.6 742.9 412.7 330.2 74.3
4 9 91.1 210.9 114.6 10 21.1 1729.6 940.0 789.6 173.0
5 1 92.0 580.0 400.0 10 58.0 533.6 368.0 165.6 53.4
6 7 92.7 138.1 76.2 10 13.8 896.4 494.6 401.8 89.6
7 4 94.0 50.0 50.0 0 0.0 188.0 188.0 0.0 0.0
8 1 85.0 174.0 87.0 0 0.0 147.9 74.0 74.0 0.0

PLANT UNIT CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE SYSTEM

DERATED DERATED REQUIRED
SPIN. RES. CAPACITY SPIN. RES.

2 2 0.0 0.0 *********

1 3 0.0 210.0 *********
7 4 0.0 398.0 50.0
4 9 173.0 1338.0 150.0
6 7 262.6 1832.6 150.0
3 4 336.9 2245.3 150.0
5 1 390.2 2613.3 400.0
1004 9 217.3 3402.9 400.0
1006 7 127.7 3804.8 400.0
1003 4 53.4 4134.9 400.0
1005 1 0.0 4300.5 580.0
8 1 0.0 4374.5 580.0
1008 1 0.0 4448.4 580.0
2 2 0.0 4635.4 0.0
1 3 0.0 5600.4 0.0

PERIOD 1 OF YEAR 1998 CONFIGURATION SIMULATED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HYDROCONDITION 1 PROBABILITY 45.0 %
**************************************** HYDROPLANTS OPERATIONAL SUMMARY
*****************************************
HYDRO NO. LORD. BASE PEAK TOTAL BASE PEAK TOTAL PEAK ENERGY ENERGY O&M CAPAC.
PLANT OF POS. CAPAC. CAPAC. CAPAC. ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY MINENG. SPILLED SHORTAGE (LOCAL)
FACTOR
NAME PROJ. PL U (MW) (MW) (MW) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (K$) (%)

1 HYD1 3 1004 6 210.0 965.0 1175.0 460.0 875.0 1335.0 46.2 0.0 0.0 2722.5 36.9
2 HYD2 2 1004 6 0.0 187.0 187.0 0.0 102.1 102.1 26.7 0.0 0.0 340.6 22.6
TOTALS 5 210.0 1152.0 1362.0 460.0 977.1 1437.1 72.9 0.0 0.0 3063.1 35.3
************************************** THERMAL PLANTS OPERATIONAL SUMMARY
****************************************

Figure 7.11. (page 2) MERSIM printout for a fixed expansion run of the sample problem.
MERSIM Run-1. Loading order and detailed operational summary for period 1, hydro-
condition 1 in 1998 ([Link] file).

137
 THERMAL NO. UNIT CAPAC. PLANT BASE PEAK TOTAL FUEL FUEL FUEL O&M MAINT CAPAC.
PLANT OF BASE TOTAL CAPAC. ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY DOMESTIC FOREIGN TOTAL (DMSTC) PROB.
FOR FACTOR
NAME UNTS (MW) (MW) (MW) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) (K$) (K$) (K$) (K$) (%) (%) (%)

3 FLG1 4 150.0 270.0 1080.0 895.8 11.9 907.7 17940.5 0.0 17940.5 17602.2 23.6 10.0 38.4
4 FLG2 9 150.0 276.0 2484.0 2058.6 493.7 2552.3 35782.8 0.0 35782.8 19337.9 23.6 8.9 46.9
5 FCOA 1 400.0 580.0 580.0 662.4 2.0 664.4 14873.9 0.0 14873.9 8402.6 0.0 8.0 52.3
6 FOIL 7 80.0 145.0 1015.0 1083.1 36.9 1120.0 0.0 22765.8 22765.8 15707.7 4.7 7.3 50.4
7 F-GT 4 50.0 50.0 200.0 411.7 0.0 411.7 5706.4 0.0 5706.4 5668.8 0.0 6.0 94.0
8 F-CC 1 87.0 174.0 174.0 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.0 30.8 30.8 1102.1 0.0 15.0 0.3
9 V-CC 0 300.0 600.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0
10 VLG1 0 150.0 280.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0
11 VLG2 0 150.0 280.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0
12 VCOA 0 400.0 580.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0
13 NUCL 0 300.0 600.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0
TOTALS 26 5533.0 5112.3 545.0 5657.3 74303.6 22796.5 97100.1 67821.3 46.7

******************************************* SYSTEM OPERATIONAL SUMMARY

*******************************************
THERMAL CAPACITY (MW) 5533.0 THERMAL GENERATION (GWH) 5657.3
PLANT TYPE 0 0.0 PLANT TYPE 0 0.0
PLANT TYPE 1 1080.0 PLANT TYPE 1 907.7
PLANT TYPE 2 2484.0 PLANT TYPE 2 2552.3
PLANT TYPE 3 580.0 PLANT TYPE 3 664.4
PLANT TYPE 4 1015.0 PLANT TYPE 4 1120.0
PLANT TYPE 5 200.0 PLANT TYPE 5 411.7
PLANT TYPE 6 174.0 PLANT TYPE 6 1.2
PLANT TYPE 7 0.0 PLANT TYPE 7 0.0
PLANT TYPE 8 0.0 PLANT TYPE 8 0.0
PLANT TYPE 9 0.0 PLANT TYPE 9 0.0
HYDRO CAPAC. AVAILABLE (MW) 1362.0 HYDRO GENERATION (GWH) 1437.1
HYDRO TYPE HYD1 1175.0 HYDRO TYPE HYD1 1335.0
HYDRO TYPE HYD2 187.0 HYDRO TYPE HYD2 102.1
TOTAL CAPACITY (MW) 6895.0 TOTAL GENERATION (GWH) 7094.4
PEAK LOAD (MW) 5400.0 ENERGY DEMAND (GWH) 7095.6
MINIMUM LOAD (MW) 2160.0 UNSERVED ENERGY (GWH) 1.3
MAINTENANCE SPACE (MW) 1495.0 ENERGY BALANCE (GWH) 0.1
RESERVE CAPACITY (MW) 607.0 LOSS-OF-LOAD PROBABILITY (%) 0.3759

Figure 7.11. (page 3) MERSIM printout for a fixed expansion run of the sample problem.
MERSIM Run-1. Loading order and detailed operational summary for period 1, hydro-
condition 1 in 1998 ([Link] file).

138
 STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 1998 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1 706829. 1.6825 6.141 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ENS GWH -> 152.6 735.2 2.4

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 1999 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2 766562. 4.3038 15.709 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ENS GWH -> 898.6 1254.6 614.0

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2000 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

3 831432. 0.4583 1.673 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ENS GWH -> 5.8 14.7 2.2

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2001 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4 904086. 0.1983 0.724 <- WITH MAINT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

ENS GWH -> 2.3 5.9 0.8

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2002 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

5 1057350. 6.1679 22.513 <- WITH MAINT 1 1 0 1 0 0 1

ENS GWH -> 2099.9 2221.9 1793.9

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2003 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

6 1135520. 2.5854 9.437 <- WITH MAINT 2 1 0 1 0 1 1

ENS GWH -> 773.2 1008.4 511.4

-1

............................................
............................................
............................................

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2015 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

18 1866188. 0.5180 1.891 <- WITH MAINT 3 3 5 8 3 2 2

ENS GWH -> 3.7 690.8 2.1

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2016 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

19 1973639. 0.6567 2.397 <- WITH MAINT 3 4 5 9 3 2 2

ENS GWH -> 204.7 780.2 1.7

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2017 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

20 2008848. 0.1375 0.502 <- WITH MAINT 3 4 6 9 4 2 2

ENS GWH -> 2.5 25.4 1.4

-1

-1

Figure 7.11. (page 4) MERSIM printout for a fixed expansion run of the sample problem.
MERSIM Run-1. List of configuration simulated ([Link] file).

139
 YEAR 1998
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CONFIGURATION SIMULATED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
***** EXPECTED GENERATION COSTS (K$) *****
CAPACITY TOTAL O&M **** F U E L C O S T S ****
(MW) COSTS COSTS TOTAL DOMESTIC FOREIGN
THERMAL PLANTS
TYPE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TYPE 1 1080.0 116179.3 65247.7 50931.6 50931.6 0.0
TYPE 2 2484.0 212336.4 76155.0 136181.4 136181.4 0.0
TYPE 3 580.0 110540.5 37353.9 73186.6 73186.6 0.0
TYPE 4 1015.0 185371.1 65484.7 119886.4 0.0 119886.4
TYPE 5 200.0 42355.3 22349.5 20005.8 20005.8 0.0
TYPE 6 174.0 27794.1 8169.3 19624.8 0.0 19624.8
TYPE 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TYPE 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TYPE 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL THERMAL 5533.0 694576.6 274760.0 419816.6 280305.5 139511.1
HYDRO PLANTS
TYPE HYD1 1650.0 10890.0
TYPE HYD2 206.4 1362.2
TOTAL HYDRO 1856.4 12252.2
TOTAL SYSTEM 7389.4 706828.9 287012.3 419816.6 280305.5 139511.1

HYDROCONDITION 1 2 3
PROBABILITY (%) 45.0 30.0 25.0
UNSERVED ENERGY(GWH) 152.6 735.1 2.4
LOSS-OF-LOAD PROBABILITY (%) 1.0776 3.8162 0.2105
EXPECTED LOLP (WEIGHED) (%) 1.6824

ENERGY OUTPUT (GWH) BY PLANT FOR YEAR 1998

PLANT PERIODS:
1 2 3 4 TOTAL

HYD1 1325.3 1375.3 1475.3 1552.8 5728.6

HYD2 100.4 100.4 100.4 100.4 401.8
FLG1 606.0 670.8 604.1 696.7 2577.6
FLG2 2162.1 2353.5 2435.2 2660.1 9610.9
FCOA 879.6 518.0 1085.8 922.8 3406.1
FOIL 1495.8 1655.0 1613.0 1375.1 6138.8
F-GT 386.0 300.1 345.6 411.7 1443.4
F-CC 138.6 200.3 256.2 161.7 756.9
V-CC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
VLG1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
VLG2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
VCOA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NUCL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure 7.11. (page 5)MERSIM printout for a fixed expansion run of the sample problem.
MERSIM Run-1. Yearly summaries of results of simulation for 1998 ([Link] file).

140
Plants concerned in group-limitation:
Group-limitation= 1 Measure index= 1 Plants= F-CC VLG2
Group-limitation= 2 Measure index= 2 Plants= FLG1 FLG2 FCOA FOIL F-GT
VLG1 VLG2 VCOA
Group-limitation= 3 Measure index= 3 Plants= FLG1 FLG2 FCOA FOIL F-GT
F-CC V-CC VLG1 VLG2 VCOA

Group-limitation= 4 Measure index= 1 Plants= FLG1 FLG2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
configuration simulated: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
year period hydro- No. of strategies No. of strategies
condition generated used
1998 1 1 43 2
1998 1 2 43 2
1998 1 3 43 2
1998 2 1 18 2
1998 2 2 18 2
1998 2 3 43 2
1998 3 1 43 2
1998 3 2 18 2
1998 3 3 43 2
1998 4 1 43 2
1998 4 2 43 2
1998 4 3 43 2

Figure 7.11. (page 6) MERSIM printout for a fixed expansion run of the sample problem.
MERSIM Run-1. Report of strategies generated and used by group-limitations for year 1998
([Link] file).

7.3.3. Input data for dynamic expansion plans

After executing the corresponding CONGEN run as discussed in Section 6.3.3, the MERSIM
run is carried out. A number of CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO iterations are required to
reach the optimal solution. The MERSIM runs for each iteration are executed using the same
input data shown in Figure 7.12. The MERSIM printouts for two of these runs are shown in
Figures 7.13 and 7.14.

Comparing the data records of Fig. 7.12 with the ones used for the fixed expansion plan run
(MERSIM Run-1, Fig. 7.9), it can be seen that they are essentially the same, except for a few
minor changes introduced for dynamic expansion plans which do not affect the numerical
calculations carried out by the program. For example, the first line on Fig. 7.12 specifies a "0"
for the file printing option (IOFILE). Also, and in order to reduce the printout which would be
associated with a variable expansion plan run of MERSIM, the printout option (type-4 record)
has been set to "0" requesting only minimum output for all years.
It may be emphasised that no change should be made in the input of MERSIM for all runs of
the variable expansion plan, except for change in output options. The reason being that if any
change is made in spinning reserves requirements, loading order instructions, maintenance
schedule or group-limitations, the results of simulations from previous iterations will not be
compatible with those for present run.

141
Demonstration Case (Variable Expansion) 0 0 0 0
2
1.0 -1
4
0
5
25
1 (END OF YEAR 1998)
8
2
3 0 0 30 26
4 0 20 10 26
1 (END OF YEAR 1999)
8
2
3 0 30 26 0
4 -1
1 (END OF YEAR 2000)
1 (END OF YEAR 2001)
1 (END OF YEAR 2002)
1 (END OF YEAR 2003)
1 (END OF YEAR 2004)
1 (END OF YEAR 2005)
1 (END OF YEAR 2006)
1 (END OF YEAR 2007)
1 (END OF YEAR 2008)
1 (END OF YEAR 2009)
1 (END OF YEAR 2010)
1 (END OF YEAR 2011)
1 (END OF YEAR 2012)
1 (END OF YEAR 2013)
1 (END OF YEAR 2014)
1 (END OF YEAR 2015)
1 (END OF YEAR 2016)
1 (END OF YEAR 2017)

Figure 7.12. MERSIM input data for variable expansion runs of the sample problem
(DEMOCASE).
7.3.4. Printouts for dynamic expansion plans

The MERSIM printout for variable expansion runs is essentially the same as for the fixed
expansion plan described in Section 7.3.2 with the difference that both, the file printing option
and the print output option have been set to "0" for variable expansion runs. Thus, the printout
for these runs includes only: the cover page identifying the run (equal to page 1 of Fig. 7.11),
followed by input data read by records (similar to middle part of page 1 of Fig. 7.11) in the
[Link] file, and the listing of the configurations which were simulated in the present
run (similar to page 3 of Fig. 7.11) in the [Link] file.

Figures 7.13 and 7.14 illustrate a sample of the MERSIM printout for two different dynamic
expansion plans. Fig. 7.13 corresponds to the first of such runs (called MERSIM Run-2),
using the [Link] file created by CONGEN Run-2 presented in Section [Link] and
Fig. 7.14 to the last run (MERSIM Run-3) of the series made while searching for the optimum
solution of the sample problem and using the [Link] file created by CONGEN
Run-3 (Section [Link]).

For the first variable expansion MERSIM run, only the configurations simulated in this run
for the first five years of study are shown in Fig. 7.13. Each configuration is reported in a
similar way as discussed for the fixed expansion MERSIM run. The number of the
configuration (STATE) corresponds to the same number on the [Link] file, taking
into account the list of configurations contained in the current [Link] file. Thus,

142
for the first three years only one configuration per year is shown as there was only one
configuration generated for these years by the corresponding CONGEN run. In the 4th year,
there were two configurations for the present run and in the 5th year, 24 configurations. The
above numbers of configurations are the same as those listed in CONGEN list of annual
configurations for the corresponding run (Fig. 6.8, page 2).

The printout for the last variable expansion MERSIM run, shown partially in Fig. 7.14, is
similar to that for first expansion run (Fig. 7.13), with the only difference that the number of
simulated configurations is different for year 2002.

143
 STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 1998 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1 706829. 1.6824 6.141 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 152.6 735.1 2.4
-1
STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 1999 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2 766562. 4.3038 15.709 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 898.6 1254.6 614.0
-1
STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2000 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3 831432. 0.4583 1.673 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 5.8 14.7 2.2
-1
STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2001 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4 904086. 0.1983 0.724 <- WITH MAINT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 2.3 5.9 0.8
5 921447. 0.0383 0.140 <- WITH MAINT 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 0.3 0.9 0.1
-1
STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2002 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *
6 1102501. 5.1791 18.904 <- WITH MAINT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 1530.3 1097.0 1267.4
7 1110853. 0.5371 1.960 <- WITH MAINT 2 0 0 1 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 10.9 13.9 9.0
8 1114865. 2.1520 7.855 <- WITH MAINT 2 1 0 1 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 776.4 900.7 396.9
9 1045172. 10.4083 37.990 <- WITH MAINT 1 2 0 1 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 3629.0 3822.6 3347.9
10 1128199. 2.4125 8.806 <- WITH MAINT 2 2 0 1 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 878.6 1006.4 682.7
11 1080401. 4.7591 17.371 <- WITH MAINT 1 0 0 2 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 1622.9 1729.7 1478.2
12 1131100. 0.1407 0.514 <- WITH MAINT 2 0 0 2 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 2.2 3.0 1.8
13 1093690. 4.5822 16.725 <- WITH MAINT 1 1 0 2 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 1683.7 1790.1 1388.8
14 1146705. 1.2147 4.434 <- WITH MAINT 2 1 0 2 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 311.2 559.4 275.1
15 1091808. 7.2985 26.639 <- WITH MAINT 1 2 0 2 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 2620.5 2904.8 2329.3
16 1161606. 0.7087 2.587 <- WITH MAINT 2 2 0 2 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 202.3 349.0 145.3
17 1082475. 3.4449 12.574 <- WITH MAINT 2 1 0 0 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1040.8 1188.6 851.2
18 1098346. 4.5483 16.601 <- WITH MAINT 2 2 0 0 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1336.2 1038.2 1353.8
19 1104596. 0.4046 1.477 <- WITH MAINT 2 0 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 7.7 10.6 5.7
20 1057350. 6.1679 22.513 <- WITH MAINT 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 2099.9 2221.9 1793.9
21 1112805. 1.6806 6.134 <- WITH MAINT 2 1 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 456.1 808.5 455.5
22 1044540. 9.8054 35.790 <- WITH MAINT 1 2 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 3419.0 3680.1 3109.2
23 1125116. 2.0446 7.463 <- WITH MAINT 2 2 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 738.1 914.1 524.1
24 1077058. 4.3867 16.011 <- WITH MAINT 1 0 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1517.2 1650.9 1344.2
25 1125201. 0.1014 0.370 <- WITH MAINT 2 0 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1.5 2.1 1.1
26 1092748. 4.0785 14.887 <- WITH MAINT 1 1 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1427.2 1711.4 1247.6
27 1140400. 0.9519 3.474 <- WITH MAINT 2 1 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 270.6 400.2 231.5
28 1092388. 6.6416 24.242 <- WITH MAINT 1 2 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 2406.5 2675.8 2027.0
29 1155898. 0.6493 2.370 <- WITH MAINT 2 2 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 131.4 240.6 363.5
-1

Figure 7.13. MERSIM printout (partial) for the first variable expansion run of the sample
problem (MERSIM Run-2). Listing of the configurations simulated in the run
([Link] file).

144
 STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 1998 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1 706829. 1.6825 6.141 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 152.6 735.2 2.4
-1
STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 1999 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2 766562. 4.3038 15.709 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 898.6 1254.6 614.0
-1
STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2000 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3 831432. 0.4583 1.673 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 5.8 14.7 2.2
-1
STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2001 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4 904086. 0.1983 0.724 <- WITH MAINT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 2.3 5.9 0.8
5 921447. 0.0383 0.140 <- WITH MAINT 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 0.3 0.9 0.1
-1
STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2002 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
6 1103057. 0.3800 1.387 <- WITH MAINT 3 0 0 0 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 7.2 10.0 5.6
7 1082475. 3.4449 12.574 <- WITH MAINT 2 1 0 0 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1040.8 1188.6 851.2
8 1118445. 0.2015 0.736 <- WITH MAINT 3 1 0 0 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 3.4 4.9 2.5
9 1098385. 4.5483 16.601 <- WITH MAINT 2 2 0 0 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1335.0 1035.3 1353.8
10 1138114. 0.1016 0.371 <- WITH MAINT 3 2 0 0 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1.5 2.1 1.1
11 1104596. 0.4046 1.477 <- WITH MAINT 2 0 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 7.7 10.6 5.7
12 1120713. 0.0974 0.355 <- WITH MAINT 3 0 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1.5 2.1 1.1
13 1057350. 6.1679 22.513 <- WITH MAINT 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 2099.9 2221.9 1793.9
14 1112805. 1.6806 6.134 <- WITH MAINT 2 1 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 456.1 808.5 455.5
15 1136345. 0.0465 0.170 <- WITH MAINT 3 1 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 0.6 0.9 0.4
16 1044540. 9.8054 35.790 <- WITH MAINT 1 2 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 3419.0 3680.1 3109.2
17 1125116. 2.0446 7.463 <- WITH MAINT 2 2 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 738.1 914.1 524.1
18 1155125. 0.0214 0.078 <- WITH MAINT 3 2 0 1 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 0.2 0.4 0.1
19 1077058. 4.3867 16.011 <- WITH MAINT 1 0 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1517.2 1650.9 1344.2
20 1125201. 0.1014 0.370 <- WITH MAINT 2 0 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1.5 2.1 1.1
21 1141479. 0.0212 0.077 <- WITH MAINT 3 0 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 0.2 0.4 0.1
22 1092748. 4.0785 14.887 <- WITH MAINT 1 1 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 1427.2 1711.4 1247.6
23 1140410. 0.9519 3.474 <- WITH MAINT 2 1 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 270.4 400.2 230.4
24 1156055. 0.0094 0.034 <- WITH MAINT 3 1 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 0.1 0.1 0.0
25 1092388. 6.6416 24.242 <- WITH MAINT 1 2 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 2406.5 2675.9 2027.0
26 1156323. 0.6493 2.370 <- WITH MAINT 2 2 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 131.4 190.6 363.5
27 1172854. 0.0041 0.015 <- WITH MAINT 3 2 0 2 0 0 1
ENS GWH -> 0.0 0.0 0.0
-1
Figure 7.14. MERSIM printout (partial) for the last variable expansion run of the sample
problem (MERSIM Run-3). Listing of the configurations simulated in the run ([Link]
file).

145
7.3.5. Re-simulation of the optimum solution

In carrying out MERSIM with a variable expansion schedule involving hundreds of

configurations, the minimum print output option (IOPT = 0) was specified in order to avoid
printing a large amount of unnecessary information. Some of this information, however, is
useful for the analysis of the final results. Moreover, at the end of the dynamic optimization
process, if Module 7 (REPROBAT) is to be run to obtain a full report of the optimal solution,
it is necessary to execute first a resimulation of this optimal solution in order to create the
appropriate information needed by REPROBAT. Thus, there is a provision in WASP-IV to
reproduce this information for the optimum schedule of additions, by executing a run of
REMERSIM (it stands for REsimulate MERSIM). The REMERSIM run uses the same
program as MERSIM except for the input and output files used. The batch file [Link],
provided to execute a REMERSIM run, handles the necessary file assignments. This batch
file copies the [Link] file, which was created by the latest DYNPRO run, to
[Link] file so that the configurations (one for each year) selected in the optimal
solution are re-simulated. REMERSIM generates the intermediate files [Link],
[Link] and [Link] for the use by REPROBAT and uses the same files
as MERSIM: [Link], [Link], [Link] and [Link] for
output reports.

To underline the difference between the simulation and resimulation modes two different
buttons (MERSIM and REMERSIM) have been included in WASP MODULES screen (fig.
2.11). when clicking THE REMERSIM button, the screen shown in figure 7.15 is displayed.
As for the previous modules, this screen has the following four options:

• ENTER/MODIFY REMERSIM INPUT, to enter or modify data for the module;

• EXECUTE REMERSIM, to execute the module, after completing the data

entering/modifying;

• VIEW REMERSIM OUTPUT, to view or print the module output;

• BACK, to return to the previous screen.

Figure 7.15. Main screen REMERSIM.

If Enter/Modify REMERSIM Input button is clicked, the REMERSIM Input screen is

shown (Figure 7.16). The user interface keeps for execution of the resimulation run almost the

146
same structure of the [Link] file as the one used in the MERSIM runs for variable
expansion plans, except that detailed results of group-limitations (if such limits are imposed
on the system) should be requested by setting Group Limitation Report option at Detailed
(IOUTGR=1 in [Link] file) and that at least intermediate output (IOPT=1) should be
specified for all years of the study in order to get the necessary information for REMERSIM
module. Alternatively, the maximum output (IOPT=2) may be specified for some years to
have a detailed listing with the results of the simulations for each configuration per period and
hydro-condition or the minimum output (IOPT=0) may be used for some of the years,
particularly if the results of the simulations for the configurations included in the optimal
solution have already been analysed in previous runs. Figure 7.17 lists the content of
[Link] input file used for the REMERSIM run of the sample problem. (Important
note: In each year IOPT must be greater than, or equal to 1 if the REMERSIM run is to be
followed by a REPROBAT run requesting full report of the current DYNPRO solution or the
optimal solution).

Figure 7.16. REMERSIM input data screen.

Additionally, the information on specific fuel consumption (for plants using domestic fuel in
1st column and for plants using foreign fuel in 2nd column of the form on the bottom of
REMERSIM Input screen) and fuel stock (for plants using domestic fuel in 3rd column and
for plants using foreign fuel in 4th column) by unit of each thermal plant (type-7 records in
[Link] file) should be provided in the re-simulation run. This information will be
used by REMERSIM to calculate total fuel consumption and stock by plant, which will be
passed to REPROBAT.

In the sample problem, the type-7 records (after the type-1 INDEX=7 record) are as follows.
The first two (type-7a) records specify the domestic fuel consumption by unit (ton/GWh) for
the FIXSYS+VARSYS thermal plants (9 plants per record). The next two (type-7b) records
provide similar information but for the foreign fuel. These are followed by the records
specifying the domestic fuel stock by unit (next two records of type-7c) and foreign fuel stock
by unit (last two records of type-7d). Both values are specified in ton. Note that two records
for each set are required since 11 thermal plants are included in the combined list of FIXSYS
+ VARSYS thermal plants.

147
Demonstration Case (Variable Expansion) 0 0 1 0
2
1.0 -1
4
2
5
25
7
1722.22 1522.34 440.81 00.00 330.00 00.00 00.00 1619.05 1563.49
00.00 00.00
00.00 00.00 00.00 231.55 00.00 186.18 177.27 00.0 00.00
412.64 00.00
1000000.1000000.1000000. 0.0 1000000. 0.0 0.0 1000000.1000000.
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 1000000. 0.0 1000000.1000000. 0.0 0.0
1000000. 1000.
1 (END OF YEAR 1998)
8
2
3 0 0 30 26
4 0 20 10 26
1 (END OF YEAR 1999)
8
2
3 0 30 26 0
4 -1
1 (END OF YEAR 2000)
1 (END OF YEAR 2001)
1 (END OF YEAR 2002)
1 (END OF YEAR 2003)
1 (END OF YEAR 2004)
1 (END OF YEAR 2005)
1 (END OF YEAR 2006)
1 (END OF YEAR 2007)
1 (END OF YEAR 2008)
1 (END OF YEAR 2009)
1 (END OF YEAR 2010)
1 (END OF YEAR 2011)
1 (END OF YEAR 2012)
1 (END OF YEAR 2013)
1 (END OF YEAR 2014)
1 (END OF YEAR 2015)
1 (END OF YEAR 2016)
1 (END OF YEAR 2017)

Figure 7.17. Input data of the REMERSIM run for the sample problem (DEMOCASE).

For the REMERSIM run, the [Link] file contains the configurations (one per year)
included in the optimal solution. Each configuration is taken by MERSIM for re-simulating
the system operation so as to report the same kind of information already described for a fixed
expansion MERSIM run (see Section 7.3.2).

When the user clicks View REMERSIM Output button in the main screen REMERSIM,
the REMERSIM Output screen is displayed (Figure 7.18). Four output options are available:

• Summary of Simulated Configurations: to see the list of annual configurations

written by the module program in [Link] file.

• Annual Summary of Results: to see the summary of annual costs written in

[Link] file.

• Detailed Simulation Results for each Period and HC: to see details of simulation
for each configuration, per period and per hydro-condition written in [Link]
file.

148
 • Group Limitation Results: to see detailed results of group-limitations (if imposed on
the system) written in [Link] file.

Figure 7.18. REMERSIM output options screen.

Figure 7.19 corresponds to a sample of the printout of the REMERSIM run for re-simulation
of the optimal solution for the sample problem. The printout of annual configurations in
[Link] file (page 1 of Fig. 7.19) is similar as for other MERSIM runs (see page 3 of
Fig. 7.11, and Figures 7.13 and 7.14) with the only difference that in this case, the listing of
the yearly configurations bears a title "THIS IS A SIMULATION OF THE FINAL
SOLUTION FOUND BY THE DYNAMIC PROGRAM".

Normally, REMERSIM is run using IOFILE = 0 (no printing of FIXSYS or VARSYS

information in [Link] file). Thus, the printout begins with the cover page and the list
of input data for the first year of study. Since maximum output is normally requested for re-
simulation runs, a detailed output is reported by the program with the operational results of
the simulation for each period, each hydro-condition and each year of the study (similar to
page 2 of Fig. 7.11). The input data for each year is also printed by the program. (These
printouts are not shown in Fig. 7.19, since they are similar to those described for fixed
expansion run). If pumped-storage plants are present in the system, the results of P-S
operation will also be reported with details of off-loading, pumping capabilities of thermal
plants, generation by P-S plants, off-loaded thermal plants, etc.

Again, since maximum (or intermediate) output is normally requested for resimulation runs,
the printout includes for each year of study the annual summary of results in [Link]
file, as described for the output of the fixed expansion run of MERSIM (see page 4 of Fig.
7.11). However, the REMERSIM printout includes additional summary tables for each year
when IOPT>0. These are printed for each configuration and each hydro-condition (adding the
values for the same hydro-condition for all periods). Page 2 of Fig. 7.19 illustrates this part of
the print for year 1998 and for hydro-condition 1. These are followed by a summary of the
annual expected values, weighting the values for each hydro-condition by the hydro-condition
probabilities (Fig. 7.19, page 3). Note that these tables also report the fuel consumption by
each thermal plant. These summary tables are very convenient to review the results of the
simulation of the DYNPRO solution under examination.

Another output of the REMERSIM run is represented by the detailed results of group-
limitations (if imposed on the system) in the [Link] file. These are shown on page

149
4 of Fig. 7.19 for the sample problem. This page first reports thermal plants involved in
various group-limitations, then configuration simulated and year, period and hydro-condition.
Then this part of printout includes initial loading order (strategy 1), names of thermal plants
(capacity blocks), number of units, availability and capacity. The next line is the resultant
LOLP, ENS, Cost and Weight of this strategy. After that, generation by each thermal plant is
reported for this strategy and at the end, the list of the actual contributions and the imposed
limits for all group-limitations. In this sample problem, it may be noted that group limit 4 is
violated by this strategy and hence new strategies have to be generated and evaluated.

Next on the same page similar results of other strategies are shown with one difference that
along with the generation by thermal plant for the present strategy, the generation for the
initial strategy is also reported together with the difference between the two strategies. In the
sample problem, 43 strategies were generated for period 1, hydro-condition 1 in year 1998,
but only 2 strategies, viz. number 1 and 2, were used (by mixing them with optimal weights)
to obtain the least cost dispatch strategy which satisfies all the group-limitations imposed. The
results of this optimal (mixed) strategy are shown at the bottom of the page 4 of Fig. 7.19.

The REMERSIM printout for the optimal solution of the case study should be revised very
carefully by the user in order to make sure that the results are not obviously wrong,
particularly concerning plant capacity factors, number of units in each plant, the amount of
energy-not-served and the energy balance as it is explained at the end of Section 7.3.2. In
addition, the REMERSIM printout should be checked by the user to determine whether the
results of the simulations are reasonable. This revision should concentrate in such aspects as:

• the loading order calculated by the program (if applicable);

• the capacity factors resulting from the simulation for thermal plants which are
supposed to be operating in a certain region of the load curve (base, intermediate or
peak load);

• the amount of hydro energy shortage and/or energy spillage (if applicable); etc.

As a result of this analysis, it may be necessary to proceed to new optimization runs involving
iterations of CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO in order to correct some of the results that are
judged unacceptable. In some extreme cases, it may be necessary to initiate a new WASP
study if the data to be corrected affect one of the three first modules of WASP-IV or the data
specified for the simulation runs. In view of the above, it is strongly recommended to run
REMERSIM at certain stages of the optimization procedure in order to guarantee that the
intermediate solution reported by DYNPRO satisfies all conditions described above.

150
**************************************************
THIS IS A SIMULATION OF THE FINAL SOLUTION FOUND BY THE DYNAMIC PROGRAM
**************************************************
STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 1998 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1 706829. 1.6825 6.141 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 152.6 735.2 2.4
-1
STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 1999 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2 766562. 4.3038 15.709 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENS GWH -> 898.6 1254.6 614.0
-1
STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2000 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

3 831432. 0.4583 1.673 <- WITH MAINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ENS GWH -> 5.8 14.7 2.2

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2001 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4 904086. 0.1983 0.724 <- WITH MAINT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

ENS GWH -> 2.3 5.9 0.8

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2002 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

5 1103057. 0.3800 1.387 <- WITH MAINT 3 0 0 0 0 0 1

ENS GWH -> 7.2 10.0 5.6

-1

...................................................................
...................................................................

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2013 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

16 1740780. 0.1752 0.639 <- WITH MAINT 4 1 2 7 2 2 2

ENS GWH -> 3.6 5.3 2.0

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2014 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

17 1825340. 0.2067 0.755 <- WITH MAINT 4 1 4 8 2 2 2

ENS GWH -> 4.5 6.5 2.6

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2015 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

18 1860510. 0.1590 0.580 <- WITH MAINT 4 1 5 8 3 2 2

ENS GWH -> 3.3 4.8 1.9

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2016 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

19 1950074. 0.2046 0.747 <- WITH MAINT 4 1 5 9 3 2 2

ENS GWH -> 4.6 6.5 2.7

-1

STATE COST K$ LOLP % - DAYS/YEAR 2017 CONFIGURATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

20 1977654. 0.1767 0.645 <- WITH MAINT 4 1 6 9 4 2 2

ENS GWH -> 3.9 5.5 2.3

-1

-1

Figure 7.19. (Page 1) REMERSIM printout for the optimum solution of DEMOCASE.
Summary output of the list of configurations simulated in the run ([Link] file).

151
 SUMMARY OF YEAR 1998

CONFIGURATION SIMULATED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*************************************************** HYDROCONDITION 1
***************************************************

PLANT PLANT UNIT [Link] CAPACITY FUEL CONSUMPTION GENERATION

NAME TYPE CAPACITY UNITS FACTOR ENERGY DOMESTIC FOREIGN COSTS
(MW) (%) (GWH) (TON) (TON) (K$)

1 HYD1 10 0.0 1 39.71 5740.00 0.00 0.00 10890.000

2 HYD2 11 0.0 1 22.59 408.40 0.00 0.00 1362.240
3 FLG1 1 0.0 4 26.88 2542.94 4379505.50 0.00 115332.406
4 FLG2 2 0.0 9 44.32 9644.97 14682920.00 0.00 212963.312
5 FCOA 3 0.0 1 67.35 3422.03 1508466.75 0.00 110928.148
6 FOIL 4 0.0 7 69.95 6219.93 0.00 1440223.88 187004.219
7 F-GT 5 0.0 4 82.76 1449.89 478465.09 0.00 42455.367
8 F-CC 6 0.0 1 50.72 773.08 0.00 143932.12 28294.385
9 V-CC 6 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
10 VLG1 1 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
11 VLG2 2 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
12 VCOA 3 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
13 NUCL 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

TOTALS 30201.24 709230.062

************************************* THERMAL PLANTS AGGREGATED BY PLANT TYPE

*************************************

PLANT TOTAL CAPACITY TOTAL TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION GENERATION

TYPE CAPACITY FACTOR ENERGY DOMESTIC FOREIGN COSTS
(MW) (%) (GWH) (TON) (TON) (K$)

0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 1080 26.88 2542.94 4379505.50 0.00 115332.41
2 2484 44.32 9644.97 14682920.00 0.00 212963.31
3 580 67.35 3422.03 1508466.75 0.00 110928.15
4 1015 69.95 6219.93 0.00 1440223.88 187004.23
5 200 82.76 1449.89 478465.09 0.00 42455.37
6 174 50.72 773.08 0.00 143932.12 28294.39
7 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Figure 7.19. (Page 2) REMERSIM printout for the optimum solution of DEMOCASE.
Operational summary for hydro-condition 1 for year 1998 ([Link] file).

152
*********************************************** SUMMARY OF YEAR 1998 ************************************************
CONFIGURATION SIMULATED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HYDROCONDITION: 1 2 3
PROBABILITY: 0.450 0.300 0.250
************************** SIMULATION RESULTS WEIGHTED BY PROBABILITY OF EACH HYDROCONDITION
***************************
PLANT PLANT UNIT [Link] CAPACITY FUEL CONSUMPTION GENERATION
NAME TYPE CAPACITY UNITS FACTOR ENERGY DOMESTIC FOREIGN COSTS
(MW) (%) (GWH) (TON) (TON) (K$)
1 HYD1 10 0.0 1 39.63 5728.60 0.00 0.00 10890.000
2 HYD2 11 0.0 1 22.22 401.76 0.00 0.00 1362.240
3 FLG1 1 0.0 4 27.24 2577.57 4439138.00 0.00 116179.258
4 FLG2 2 0.0 9 44.17 9610.85 14630984.00 0.00 212336.406
5 FCOA 3 0.0 1 67.04 3406.13 1501455.62 0.00 110540.422
6 FOIL 4 0.0 7 69.04 6138.81 0.00 1421441.75 185370.875
7 F-GT 5 0.0 4 82.39 1443.42 476329.12 0.00 42355.301
8 F-CC 6 0.0 1 49.66 756.90 0.00 140919.89 27794.000
9 V-CC 6 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
10 VLG1 1 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
11 VLG2 2 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
12 VCOA 3 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
13 NUCL 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
TOTALS 30064.04 706828.500
************************************* THERMAL PLANTS AGGREGATED BY PLANT TYPE *************************************
PLANT TOTAL CAPACITY TOTAL TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION GENERATION
TYPE CAPACITY FACTOR ENERGY DOMESTIC FOREIGN COSTS
(MW) (%) (GWH) (TON) (TON) (K$)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 1079 27.24 2577.57 4439138.00 0.00 116179.26
2 2483 44.17 9610.85 14630984.00 0.00 212336.41
3 579 67.04 3406.13 1501455.62 0.00 110540.42
4 1013 69.04 6138.81 0.00 1421441.75 185370.89
5 199 82.39 1443.42 476329.12 0.00 42355.30
6 173 49.66 756.90 0.00 140919.89 27794.00
7 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
_ YEAR 1998
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CONFIGURATION SIMULATED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
***** EXPECTED GENERATION COSTS (K$) *****
CAPACITY TOTAL O&M **** F U E L C O S T S ****
(MW) COSTS COSTS TOTAL DOMESTIC FOREIGN
THERMAL PLANTS
TYPE 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TYPE 1 1080.0 116179.3 65247.7 50931.6 50931.6 0.0
TYPE 2 2484.0 212336.4 76155.0 136181.4 136181.4 0.0
TYPE 3 580.0 110540.4 37353.8 73186.6 73186.6 0.0
TYPE 4 1015.0 185370.9 65484.7 119886.2 0.0 119886.2
TYPE 5 200.0 42355.3 22349.5 20005.8 20005.8 0.0
TYPE 6 174.0 27794.0 8169.3 19624.7 0.0 19624.7
TYPE 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TYPE 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TYPE 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL THERMAL 5533.0 694576.2 274760.0 419816.3 280305.4 139510.9
HYDRO PLANTS
TYPE HYD1 1650.0 10890.0
TYPE HYD2 206.4 1362.2
TOTAL HYDRO 1856.4 12252.2
TOTAL SYSTEM 7389.4 706828.5 287012.2 419816.3 280305.4 139510.9
HYDROCONDITION 1 2 3
PROBABILITY (%) 45.0 30.0 25.0
UNSERVED ENERGY (GWH) 152.6 735.2 2.4
LOSS-OF-LOAD PROBABILITY (%) 1.0776 3.8164 0.2105
EXPECTED LOLP (WEIGHED) (%) 1.6825
_
ENERGY OUTPUT (GWH) BY PLANT FOR YEAR 1998
PLANT PERIODS:
1 2 3 4 TOTAL
HYD1 1325.3 1375.3 1475.3 1552.8 5728.6
HYD2 100.4 100.4 100.4 100.4 401.8
FLG1 606.0 670.8 604.1 696.7 2577.6
FLG2 2162.1 2353.5 2435.2 2660.1 9610.9
FCOA 879.6 518.0 1085.8 922.8 3406.1
FOIL 1495.8 1655.0 1613.0 1375.1 6138.8
F-GT 386.0 300.1 345.6 411.7 1443.4
F-CC 138.6 200.3 256.2 161.7 756.9
V-CC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
VLG1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
VLG2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
VCOA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NUCL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure 7.19. (Page 3) REMERSIM printout for the optimum solution of DEMOCASE.
Operational summary for yearly averages for year 1998 ([Link] file).

153
Plants concerned in group-limitation:
Group-limitation= 1 Measure index= 1 Plants= F-CC VLG2
Group-limitation= 2 Measure index= 2 Plants= FLG1 FLG2 FCOA FOIL F-GT
VLG1 VLG2 VCOA
Group-limitation= 3 Measure index= 3 Plants= FLG1 FLG2 FCOA FOIL F-GT
F-CC V-CC VLG1 VLG2 VCOA

Group-limitation= 4 Measure index= 1 Plants= FLG1 FLG2

===================================================================
configuration simulated: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
year=1998 period= 1 hydro condition= 1

Initial loading order (strategy 1)

Plant Units Availability Capacity (MW)

F-GT(base) 4 0.94 50.00
FLG2(base) 9 0.91 114.65
FOIL(base) 7 0.93 76.22
FLG1(base) 4 0.90 114.65
FCOA(base) 1 0.92 400.00
FLG2(peak) 9 0.91 96.30
FOIL(peak) 7 0.93 61.93
FLG1(peak) 4 0.90 91.72
FCOA(peak) 1 0.92 180.00
F-CC(base) 1 0.85 87.00
F-CC(peak) 1 0.85 87.00

lolp: 0.376 % ens: 1.28578 GWh cost: 43696.336 weight:0.5833

Plant Generation (GWh)

FLG1 907.71124
FLG2 2552.29346
FCOA 664.36395
FOIL 1120.02380
F-GT 411.72003
F-CC 1.18708
V-CC 0.00000
VLG1 0.00000
VLG2 0.00000
VCOA0.00000
NUCL 0.00000
Limitation Contribution Limit
1 0.22101 < 2513.43628
2 148.44058 < 150.00000
3 71.84866 < 250.00000
4 5677.18115 > 4516.28955

Figure 7.19. (Page 4) REMERSIM printout for the optimum solution of DEMOCASE. Output
of the group-limitation results. ([Link] file.

154
Strategy 2
The strategy was generated by moving the plants concerned in
group-limitation 4 to the end of the initial loading order.

lolp: 0.376 % ens: 1.28578 GWhcost: 46249.566 weight: 0.4167

Plant New Generation Original Generation Difference

(GWh) (GWh) (GWh)
FLG1 92.60231 907.71124 -815.10895
FLG2 1696.78882 2552.29346 -855.50470
FCOA 1168.58398 664.36395 504.22000
FOIL 1963.13550 1120.02380 843.11163
F-GT 411.72003 411.72003 0.00000
F-CC 323.90091 1.18708 322.71384
V-CC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
VLG1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
VLG2 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
VCOA 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
NUCL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

Limitation Contribution Limit

1 60.30446 < 2513.43628
2 82.65302 < 150.00000
3 53.83096 < 250.00000
4 2891.07300 < 4516.28955
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mixed strategy

lolp: 0.376 % ens: 1.28578 GWhcost: 44760.195

Plant Weighted Generation (GWh)

FLG1 568.07867
FLG2 2195.82935
FCOA 874.45801
FOIL 1471.32434
F-GT 411.72003
F-CC 135.65268
V-CC 0.00000
VLG1 0.00000
VLG2 0.00000
VCOA0.00000
NUCL 0.00000

Limitation Contribution imit

1 25.25606 < 2513.43628
2 121.02879 < 150.00000
3 64.34119 < 250.00000
4 4516.28955 = 4516.28955

Figure 7.19. (Page 5) REMERSIM printout for the optimum solution of DEMOCASE. Output
of the group-limitation results. ([Link] file).

155
 CHAPTER 8. EXECUTION OF DYNPRO

To start the execution of DYNPRO module the user should click the DYNPRO button in the
WASP Modules screen (Fig. 2.11). The DYNPRO main screen will be displayed (Figure
8.1). As for the previous modules, this screen has the following four options:

• Enter/Modify DYNPRO Input, to enter or modify data for the module;

• Execute DYNPRO, to execute the module, after completing the data

entering/modifying;

• View DYNPRO Output, to view or print the module output;

• Back, to return to the previous screen.

Figure 8.1. Main screen DYNPRO.

8.1. Input/output files

DYNPRO uses 9 input/output files. The data supplied by the user in various input screens, as
described in the next section, are converted by the Windows interface to the input file called
[Link]. The other input files for this module are: [Link] produced by
VARSYS, [Link] produced by CONGEN, [Link] produced by
MERSIM. It generates two intermediate output files: [Link] for use by
REPROBAT and [Link] to be used by MERSIM for re-simulation of the final
optimum solution. [Link] file is used by the program to carry out the economic
evaluation of all alternative expansion schedules or plans permitted by the current
[Link] file and to select among them, the one having the least total costs. The
results of DYNPRO are reported in three output files called [Link],
[Link] and [Link]. The two report (.REP) files must be reviewed
carefully by the user to confirm successful execution of the current run.

As discussed in Chapter 1, the total costs of an expansion plan are expressed by the objective
function, which in turn is defined as the sum of capital investment costs (corrected by salvage
value) of the VARSYS plants added by the plan plus the total operating costs (including fuel
and energy-not-served costs) of the system for each year; all costs discounted to a reference
year. For each year of the study, DYNPRO evaluates the objective function for each
configuration included in the [Link] file. In doing so, the program also chooses the

156
optimum path to reach this configuration using a dynamic programming algorithm. Thus, at
each stage (year) the program calculates the optimal way of reaching a given configuration in
the preceding year connected to the optimum path. Obviously, the configuration in the last
year which has the least value of objective function must be included in the optimum (best)
expansion plan.

The configurations in the precedent years contained in this optimum plan are retrieved by the
program simply tracing back through the stage-by-stage optimal decisions. During the
traceback process, DYNPRO also examines the restrictions that were defined in CONGEN
and identifies on the printout the states on the optimal trajectory for which these restrictions
acted as a constraint to the solution. Interpreting the DYNPRO printout, the user can proceed
to a new dynamic iteration involving sequential runs of CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO, with
the restrictions in the CONGEN run modified accordingly. The process is repeated until the
best solution reported by DYNPRO, not “constrained” by the CONGEN restrictions, is
obtained. This will be the optimum solution for the case under study.

The DYNPRO module can also be used to evaluate any specific expansion schedule, such as
the predetermined expansion plan of DEMOCASE described in Section 6.3.1 for which the
user explicitly defines the number of units or projects of each expansion candidate that are to
be added to the system in each year of the study. In this case, DYNPRO simply performs as a
cash flow program. This procedure can be used to evaluate a number of expansion patterns of
system expansion to select a favorable area to be used as starting point in full-scale dynamic
optimization runs. Also the fixed expansion mode for execution of DYNPRO is
recommended during the debugging phase of the input data of the WASP modules. Section
8.3.1 describes how to run DYNPRO in the “fixed expansion” mode and Section 8.3.3 for
dynamic expansion plans.

8.2. Input data preparation

When selecting the Enter/Modify DYNPRO Input option in the main screen DYNPRO, the
input data main screen DYNPRO Input, shown in Figure 8.2, is displayed.

Figure 8.2. DYNPRO input data main screen.

157
In this screen one can enter/modify the following types of data:

• Output option, with the following possible choices:

• Minimum output: the “optimization pattern” of the run (see Section 8.3.4 for details)
is written in [Link] file (standard output for the module);

• Print all states considered: in addition to the previous output, all states
(configurations) considered in the run are written in [Link] file;

• Detailed output: in addition to the previous outputs, detailed debug information is

written in [Link] file.

• printing option for VARSYS information; if activated, this function adds at the
beginning of the output file [Link] some useful information on variable
system;

• number of best solutions to be reported;

• base year for cost discounting calculation;

• base year for cost escalation calculation;

• number of years to be considered for economic comparison;

• discount rate for domestic costs (%/year);

• discount rate for foreign costs (%/year).

From the same screen one can advance to other subsequent screens or return to the previous
screen by clicking the suitable button, as follows:

• Thermal Plants button to advance to DynPro_Thermal Plants screen (Figure 8.3);

• Hydro/PS plants button to advance to DYNPRO Hydro/PS Plants Data screen

(Figure 8.4);

• Data for future Years button to advance to Annual Data for DYNPRO screen
(Figure 8.5);

• Back button to return to the main screen DYNPRO (Fig. 8.1).

After selecting a candidate thermal plant on the top of DynPro_Thermal Plants screen (Fig.
8.3), the following input data can be entered/modified in its fields:

• depreciable domestic and foreign capital costs (see Section 1.2 for the cost items
included here), including the interest during construction - IDC ($/kW);

• non-depreciable domestic and foreign capital costs ($/kW);

• interest during construction included in depreciable capital costs (%);

158
 • plant life (in years and fraction of years), to be used for salvage value calculation;

• construction time (in years and fraction of years).

Figure 8.3. Cost data for thermal plants.

Similar cost data are entered in DYNPRO Hydro/PS Plants Data screen (Fig. 8.4) for the
hydro and pumped-storage candidate projects. First, one selects the code name of a hydro/P-S
plant in the pull-down window on the top of the screen and one enters a common value of the
plant life for all the projects belonging to the respective plant. Then, the following data are
entered for each project of the plant:

• depreciable domestic and foreign capital costs, including the interest during
construction - IDC ($/kW);

• interest during construction included in depreciable capital costs (%);

• construction time (in years and fraction of years).

It should be mentioned that no non-depreciable capital costs are considered for hydro/P-S
projects.

Figure 8.4. Cost data for hydro/P-S plants.

159
The Annual Data for DYNPRO screen (Fig. 8.5) includes input data that can be changed
from one year to another, namely:

• critical value of annual loss-of-load probability – LOLP (%);

• salvage value option:

• linear depreciation: “0” in [Link] file;

• sinking fund depreciation: “1” in [Link] file;

• foreign cost multiplier (factor by which all foreign costs will be multiplied);

• 2nd order polynomial for incremental cost of energy not-served (ENS);

• annual escalation ratios for domestic and foreign capital cost of candidate thermal and
hydro/P-S plants;

• annual escalation ratios for O&M (domestic) costs of different “fuel” type plants (see
note 9 to Table 8.1);

• annual escalation ratios for domestic and foreign fuel costs of different “fuel” type
plants (see note 9 to Table 8.1).

Figure 8.5. DYNPRO data for future years.

Table 8.1 lists the above-mentioned types of data used by the DYNPRO module of WASP-
IV. This table is meant also to help the user to decode, if necessary, the content of
[Link] file created by the user interface using the data entered in various screens as
described earlier.

160
Table 8.1. (page 1) Input data for DYNPRO module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format Comment
type1 name 2

Title of study3 IDENT A60

Printing option for VARSYS IOFILE I4 To activate the option, click in

information. the corresponding field of the
screen (‘1’ in [Link]
file): print useful information
X
from [Link] file;
To deactivate, click again (‘0’ in
[Link] file): no printing of
[Link] file.
Output option. IOPT I4 Minimum output (“0” in
[Link] file): prints the
“optimization pattern” (see Section
8.3.4 for details) in [Link]
file;
Print all states considered (“1” in
[Link] file): in addition to the
previous output, prints all states
considered in the run in
[Link] file;
Detailed output (“2” in
[Link] file): in addition to the
previous outputs, prints debug
(detailed) information in
[Link] file.
Economic data (DYNPRO Input screen)
Base year for cost discounting JHRPWB I5 See Section 8.4 for details on the
calculation. definition of JHRPWB and JHRFUL.
Base year for cost escalation JHRFUL I5 Normally the same value as JHRPWB;
calculation. A
See Section 8.4 for details on the
definition of JHRPWB and JHRFUL.
First year of study3 JAHR I5
Number of years to be considered NJHRS I5 Maximum = 30.
for the economic comparison
carried out by DYNPRO.
Single domestic discount rate TEMPL F10
(%/year). B
Single foreign discount rate TEMPF F10
(%/year).
Index number4 telling the 1 INDEX I4 1 indicates that all data for the current
computer what to do next. year have been completed;
2 through 17 indicate that one or more
records follow of type equal to the
INDEX number, except that
INDEX=5,6,7,8,10,14 and 15 are not
used in the DYNPRO module.

161
Table 8.1. (page 2) Input data for DYNPRO module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format Comment
type1 name 2

Cost data for thermal plants5 (DynPro_Thermal Plants screen)

Depreciable domestic capital cost COSTL(IP) F8 IP is the number of the thermal

($/kW) of expansion candidate plant plant in VARSYS.
IP, including IDC.

Depreciable foreign capital cost COSTF(IP) F8 IP is the number of the thermal

($/kW) of expansion candidate plant plant in VARSYS.
IP, including IDC.

Plant life (in years and fraction PLIFE(IP) F8 IP is the number of the thermal
of years) of expansion plant in VARSYS.
candidate plant IP, to be used
for salvage value calculation.

Non-depreciable domestic capital cost 2 COST2L(IP F8 IP is the number of the thermal

($/kW) of expansion candidate plant ) plant in VARSYS.
IP.

Non-depreciable foreign capital cost COST2F(IP F8 IP is the number of the thermal

($/kW) of expansion candidate plant ) plant in VARSYS.
IP.

Interest during construction included ORC(IP) F8 IP is the number of the thermal

in COSTL and COSTF (in %) of plant in VARSYS.
expansion candidate plant IP.

Construction time (in years and TCON(IP) F8 IP is the number of the

fraction of years) of expansion thermal plant in VARSYS.
candidate plant IP.
Construction time of max.
10 years is allowed, if annual
distribution of capital costs
will be specified in
REPROBAT (different from
the standard “S” curve used
as default).

162
Table 8.1. (page 3) Input data for DYNPRO module of WASP-IV
Input data Record type1 Fortran Format2 Comment
name
Cost data for hydro projects6 (DYNPRO Hydro/PS Plants Data screen)
Plant life (in years and fraction 2 PLIFEH(1) F8
of years) of hydro projects
belonging to hydro plant type (cols 17-24)
A, to be used for salvage value
calculation.
Depreciable domestic capital HCOSTL(1,J) F8 J is the project number in VARSYS.
cost ($/kW) of hydro project J, Project J belongs to hydro plant type A.
including IDC.
Depreciable foreign capital HCOSTF(1,J) F8 J is the project number in VARSYS.
cost ($/kW) of hydro project J, Project J belongs to hydro plant type A.
including IDC.

Interest during construction HORC(1,J) F8 J is the project number in VARSYS.

included in HCOSTL and Project J belongs to hydro plant type A.
HCOSTF (in %) of hydro (cols 41-48)
project J. 2a
Construction time (in years HTCON(1,J) F8 J is the project number in VARSYS.
and fraction of years) of hydro Project J belongs to hydro plant type A.
project J. (cols 49-56)
Construction time of max. 10 years is
allowed, if annual distribution of
capital costs will be specified in
REPROBAT (different from the
standard “S” curve used as default).
Name of hydro project J. NOMH(1,J) A4 Must be equal to NAMEP from record
2a of VARSYS;
(cols 73-76)
J is the project number in VARSYS.
Project J belongs to hydro plant type A.
Plant life (in years and fraction 2 PLIFEH(2) F8
of years) of hydro projects
belonging to hydro plant type (cols 17-24)
B, to be used for salvage value
Depreciable domestic capital HCOSTL(2,J) F8 J is the project number in VARSYS.
cost ($/kW) of hydro project J, Project J belongs to hydro plant type B.
including IDC.
Depreciable foreign capital HCOSTF(2,J) F8 J is the project number in VARSYS.
cost ($/kW) of hydro project J, Project J belongs to hydro plant type B.
including IDC.
Interest during construction HORC(2,J) F8 J is the project number in VARSYS.
included in HCOSTL and (cols 41-48) Project J belongs to hydro plant type B.
HCOSTF (in %) of hydro
j
Construction time (in years HTCON(2,J) F8 J is the project number in VARSYS.
and fraction of years) of hydro 2a Project J belongs to hydro plant type B.
project J. (cols 49-56)
Construction time of max. 10 years is
allowed, if annual distribution of
capital costs will be specified in
REPROBAT (different from the
Name of hydro project J. NOMH(2,J) A4 Must be equal to NAMEP from record
2a of VARSYS;
(cols 73-76)
J is the project number in VARSYS.
Project J belongs to hydro plant type B.

163
Table 8.1. (page 4) Input data for DYNPRO module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment
type1 name

Cost data for P-S projects7 (DYNPRO Hydro/PS Plants Data screen)

Plant life (in years and 2 PLIFEH(3) F8

fraction of years) of P-S
(cols 17-24)
projects, to be used for
salvage value calculation.

Depreciable domestic capital cost HCOSTL(3,J) F8 J is the P-S project number in

($/kW) of P-S project J, including VARSYS.
IDC.

Depreciable foreign capital cost HCOSTF(3,J) F8 J is the P-S project number in

($/kW) of P-S project J, including VARSYS.
IDC.

Interest during construction HORC(3,J) F8 J is the P-S project number in

included in HCOSTL and VARSYS.
HCOSTF (in %) of P-S project J. (cols 41-48)

Construction time (in years and 2b HTCON(3,J) F8 J is the P-S project number in
fraction of years) of P-S project J. VARSYS.
(cols 49-56)
Construction time of max. 10
years is allowed, if annual
distribution of capital costs will
be specified in REPROBAT
(different from the standard “S”
curve used as default).

Name of P-S project J. NOMH(3,J) A4 Must be equal to NAMPS

from record 4a of
(cols 73-76)
VARSYS;

J is the P-S project number

in VARSYS.

164
Table 8.1. (page 5) Input data for DYNPRO module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format Comment
type1 name 2

General data (Annual data for DYNPRO and DYNPRO Input screens)
Factor by which all foreign costs will be 3 FF F8 Generally speaking, FF should have
multiplied. values greater than 1.0; default value =
10
Annual escalation ratio of domestic 4 ESCLC(IP) F8 Default value = 1.0.
capital cost of VARSYS plant IP8.
Annual escalation ratio of foreign 4 ESCFC(IP) F8 Default value = 1.0.
capital cost of VARSYS plant IP8.
Annual escalation ratios by type of 9 RTESLO(I) 13F6 Thirteen numbers per record in
“fuel” (plant) I of O&M (domestic) [Link] file;
costs9,10. Default values = 1.0.
Coefficients of the 2nd order 11 CF1, F8 Default values = 0.0.
polynomial of the incremental cost of
unserved energy ($/kWh) as a function CF2, F8
of the unserved energy (expressed as a CF3 F8
fraction of total annual energy).
Critical value of annual loss-of-load 12 CLOLP F8 Default value = 100.
probability – LOLP (in %)
Number of best solutions to be reported. 13 NBEST I4 Values from 1 to 10; default value = 1.
Option relating to the depreciation 16 ISAL I4 Linear depreciation (default method): “0”
method used to calculate the salvage in file [Link]
value of plants.
Sinking fund depreciation: “1” in file
[Link].
Annual escalation ratios by type of 17 EOPL(I) 13F6 Allows sensitivity studies on fuel costs;
"fuel" (plant) I, for domestic fuel Default values = 1.0;
costs9,10. Thirteen numbers per record in
[Link] file.
Annual escalation ratios by type of 17 EOPF(I) 13F6 Allows sensitivity studies on fuel costs;
"fuel" (plant) I, for foreign fuel costs9, 10. Default values = 1.0;
Thirteen numbers per record in
[Link] file.

Notes to Table 8.1

1. Relevant only for decoding the content of [Link] file but not for filling in input data screens.

2. See Section 2.6 for Format description.

3. Not entered by the user in the current screen. Handled by the interface.

4. Records type-1 INDEX=5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14 and 15 are not used.

5. One record in [Link] file for each thermal plant expansion candidate in the sequence listed in VARSYS.

6. One record in [Link] file with the plant life of each hydro plant type: first A (if any) and then B (if any), followed by a set of type-
2a records for the hydro projects belonging to the respective hydro plant type.

7. One record in [Link] file with the plant life of each P-S plant, followed by a set of type-2b records for the P-S projects belonging
to the respective P-S plant.

8. One record in [Link] for each thermal plant expansion candidate, hydro type and/or P-S plant, in the sequence from CONGEN
screen; two escalation ratios per record: the first for domestic capital cost, the second for foreign capital cost.

9. Fuel (plant) types in DYNPRO go from 0 to 12 (total equal 13). Types 0, 1, 2,..., 9 are used for thermal plants; 10 and 11 for hydro type A
and B respectively or for HYDR and PUMP respectively; and 12 is used for energy-not-served cost.

10. A non-zero escalation ratio entered in a particular year will apply automatically from that year onward, unless the user enters another non-
zero escalation ratio in a subsequent year.

165
8.3. Sample problem

8.3.1. Input data for a fixed expansion plan (DYNPRO Run-1)

Figure 8.6 presents the content of [Link] input data file prepared automatically by
the user interface for a fixed expansion plan for which DYNPRO is used only to evaluate the
costs of a predetermined expansion schedule. This corresponds to the first DYNPRO run
(identified as DYNPRO Run-1) for the sample problem, using the [Link] and
[Link] files created by CONGEN Run-1 and MERSIM Run-1 described in the
Sections 6.3 and 7.3, respectively.

As for other WASP modules, the first record specifies the title of study, the printing option for
the VARSYS file (IOFILE) and the printout option for the run (IOPT). The same remarks
made in Section 3.3.1 for the title of study to be used for CONGEN are also valid for
DYNPRO. The "0" in column 64 of this record suppresses printing of the information of the
VARSYS file, while the "1" in col. 68 calls for intermediate output report, i.e. printing of
objective function values and optimization path in [Link] file and of the list of
configurations considered in the run in [Link] file.

The second line of Fig. 8.6 is a type-A record which specifies in the first two (5-columns)
fields the base years for present worth discounting of costs (1998) and cost escalation
calculations (1998); in the 3rd field the first year of the study (1998); and in the last field the
number of years (20) to be considered for the economic comparison carried out by DYNPRO.

The next line is a type-B record with values of discount rates (in % per year) to be applied to
all local (domestic) and foreign components of costs; both values are 10% per year for the
sample problem.

Records type-1 with INDEX = 1 (2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 or 17) indicate that the next record
(or records) are of a type equal to the INDEX number (index numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, and
15 are not used). Records type-1 INDEX=1 are the usual end of year record and the remaining
record types are used to give instructions for the economic calculations to be carried out by
DYNPRO or to control the printout of the run.

Records type-1 with INDEX=2 and type-2 are used to specify the economic data on capital
costs, plant life and construction time of each VARSYS expansion candidate. For hydro and
pumped-storage candidates the corresponding type-2 record contains only information on
plant life (leaving blank the rest of the record). This tells the computer that capital cost
information for each hydro and pumped-storage project from VARSYS follows on type-2a
records (for hydro projects) and type-2b records (for P-S projects).

Input line number 4 is a such type-1 INDEX=2 record informing the program that capital cost
data, plant life and construction times follow on type-2 records. As explained earlier, this
record is followed by one type-2 record for each expansion candidate. For hydro and pumped-
storage candidate projects, the type-2 records contain only plant life (in columns 17-24),
leaving blank the rest of the record, and are followed by as many type-2a (for hydro) or type-
2b (for pumped-storage) records as the number of hydro or pumped-storage projects listed in
VARSYS. Consequently, input lines number 5 to 9 of Fig. 8.6 give the data for the thermal
expansion candidates on records type-2 in the same order of the listing in Fig. 5.7. In the
sample problem, each type-2 record has been identified by the plant number and code name in
cols. 71-76. This is for the convenience of the user and is not needed nor read by the program.

166
The input line number 10 corresponds to the type-2 record for hydro plant A (HYD1), which
contains the plant life (50. years) of the hydro projects of this type (note that the plant number
and code name have also been added in cols. 71-76 for the convenience of the user). This
record is followed by two type-2a records to specify the cost information for the two projects
of hydro plant A. Each type-2a record shows in cols. 73-76 the name of the project (NOMH
equal to NAMEP on type-2a record of VARSYS), information required by DYNPRO and
REPROBAT for printing purposes. A similar sequence is used in the next three input lines:
one type-2 record for hydro plant B (HYD2) and two type-2a records with the cost data for
hydro projects of this plant type. If pumped-storage candidate projects are considered for
system expansion, as pointed out above, a type-2 record followed by type-2b records will be
also used. Each type-2b record will, in this case, contain in cols. 73-76 the name of a pumped-
storage project (NOMH equal to NAMPS on type-4a record of VARSYS).
Record type-3 is used if a multiplying factor (> 1.0, default = 1.0) is to be applied to all
foreign costs. It is not included in [Link] file since the default value (1.0) is assumed
for the sample problem.
Records type-4 are used to give the annual escalation ratios (default =1.0) applicable to
domestic and foreign capital costs of each expansion candidate. Again, they are not included
in [Link] file since the default value (1.0) is assumed for the sample problem.
Record type-9, that gives the annual escalation ratios on O&M costs (local) of each "fuel"
type (including two hydro types or one composed hydro type and one P-S type) and energy
not-served cost, is not used for the sample problem, too.
The next line in Fig. 8.6 is a type-1 INDEX=11 record and is followed by a type-11 record.
This specifies the coefficients (CF1, CF2 and CF3) of the second order polynomial describing
the incremental cost of unserved energy (in thousand $) as a function of the amount of
unserved energy:
Unserved Energy Cost = [ CF1 + 1/2 ∗ CF2 ∗ ENS/EA + 1/3 ∗ CF3 ∗ (ENS/EA)2 ] ∗ ENS ∗ 103
where ENS represents the amount of unserved energy calculated by MERSIM and EA the
annual demand for the corresponding year, both expressed in GWh and the coefficients CF1,
CF2 and CF3 in $/kWh. The above expression is calculated for each hydro-condition and the
results weighted by the respective hydro-condition probability to give the expected cost of the
energy not-served. In the sample problem, CF1 is 1.0; CF2 and CF3 are 0.0.
The next input line is a type-1 INDEX=12 record, followed by a type-12 record giving the
critical value of LOLP. For a predetermined expansion schedule, this is normally taken as
100% in order not to reject any configuration12.
The subsequent lines are a type-1 INDEX=13 record followed by a type-13 record which tells
the computer the number of best, next best and so on (up to 10) solutions to be reported on. In
this case only one solution1 can be reported (for a fixed expansion plan there is only one state
per year and only one solution).
Next lines are a type-1 INDEX=16 record calling for a type-16 record to indicate the salvage
value option; the "1" shown in this record calls for sinking fund depreciation.

12
Note that the specified value(s) is (are) equal to the default value(s) contained in the program (see Table 8.1).
Therefore, this group of records may have been omitted, but it have been included here for demonstration
purposes.

167
Type-17 records define escalation ratios, by "fuel" type, for domestic (local) and foreign fuel
costs. As default values (1.0) are assumed for the sample problem, these records are not
included in [Link] file.
The remaining records are all type-1 INDEX=1 (all identified with the year for convenience
of the user) informing the computer that all data have been read and that calculations should
be carried out for each year of the study.
The records type-1 INDEX=3, 4, 9, 17 were not used for the sample problem in order not to
alter the optimization process to be carried out by DYNPRO. In fact, it is recommended to
leave the respective variables controlled by these records to the default values while searching
for the reference optimal solution and concentrate on changes of these values while
conducting sensitivity analyses. Finally, records type-1 INDEX=5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14 and 15 are
not permitted in DYNPRO.
Demonstration case (Fixed Expansion) 0 1
1998 1998 1998 20
10. 10.
2
318. 477. 25. 0. 0. 11.92 3. 1 V-CC
594. 891. 25. 0. 0. 19.2 5. 2 VLG1
544. 817. 25. 0. 0. 19.2 5. 3 VLG2
495. 743. 25. 0. 0. 19.2 5. 4 VCOA
730. 1703. 30. 0. 0. 26.0 7. 5 NUCL
50. 6 HYD1
841. 841. 22.67 6. VHY2
970. 970. 22.67 6. VHY3
50. 7 HYD2
742. 742. 19.2 5. VHY1
866. 866. 19.2 5. VHY4
13
1
16
1
11
1. 0. 0.
12
100.
1 (End of year 1998)
1 (End of year 1999)
1 (End of year 2000)
1 (End of year 2001)
1 (End of year 2002)
1 (End of year 2003)
1 (End of year 2004)
1 (End of year 2005)
1 (End of year 2006)
1 (End of year 2007)
1 (End of year 2008)
1 (End of year 2009)
1 (End of year 2010)
1 (End of year 2011)
1 (End of year 2012)
1 (End of year 2013)
1 (End of year 2014)
1 (End of year 2015)
1 (End of year 2016)
1 (End of year 2017)

Figure 8.6. DYNPRO input data for a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem
(DEMOCASE). DYNPRO Run-1.

It should be noted here that the use of the above-mentioned data for different years of the
study should be done with great care, since the program will carry out the optimization based

168
on the instructions given with these data. The user should be aware that by altering some of
the economic parameters through the years of the study, the comparison between alternative
expansion schedules is also altered. This is particularly valid for the various escalation rates,
which should be kept constant while searching for the optimal solution of the case study. All
DYNPRO capabilities for handling various input data are particularly advantageous for
carrying out sensitivity studies as it is described in Chapter 11.
8.3.2. Printout for a fixed expansion plan (DYNPRO Run-1)
When the user clicks View DYNPRO Output button in DYNPRO main screen, the
[Link] file is displayed. To see the other two output files generated by the module,
[Link] and [Link], the user should open them, outside the WASP-IV
program, with the available file editor, from the relevant Study_i and Case_j folders.
Figure 8.7 shows the (partial) DYNPRO printout for the fixed expansion plan of
DEMOCASE using the input data of Fig. 8.6 and the [Link] and
[Link] files created by CONGEN Run-1 and MERSIM Run-1, respectively. Since
the file printing option (IOFILE) on record type-X of this run is "0", the program does not
print first the variable system description read from the [Link] file. This
information would be similar to the one on page 2 of Fig. 6.5.
Page 1 of Fig 8.7 shows, on the top part, the cover page of the printout, which except for the
module name, shows the same information as for the CONGEN runs (see Fig. 6.5, page 3).
The rest of page 1 of Fig. 8.7 summarises the economic parameters and the capital costs given
as input data; all INDEX records are printed along with the respective data.
After printing of an INDEX=1, the program reports the value of the objective function for
each configuration (or state) in the year (in this case only one state) and the state in the
preceding year included in the sub-optimum path to reach this year state. Page 2 shows this
information for the first and last few years of the study. Since only type-1 INDEX=1 records
were used for the second and subsequent years, the printout for all these years includes an
INDEX=1 followed by the respective value of the objective function of the state and number
of the previous year state included in the sub-optimum path13.
Page 3 illustrates the results of the calculations carried out by DYNPRO for the sample
problem. These are presented in a table that summarizes the most important results for the
yearly configurations contained in the solution.
First the program reports the number of the solution (in this case only one) followed by a
summary of each year's construction cost (CONCST), salvage value (SALVAL), operating cost
(OPCOST) and cost of unserved energy (ENSCST). The objective function for each year is
shown under TOTAL together with the cumulative value (CUMM.) of the objective function
up to the corresponding year14. Note that the table lists the years of study in descending order
starting with the last year. All values are expressed in present worth and thousands of US
dollars (K$). The reliability of the configuration (LOLP) is also shown (in %). Finally, each
yearly configuration is identified by the plant code name and the number of units or projects
of each candidate plant.

13
For a fixed expansion plan there is only one state per year and only one solution. The use of the information on
the optimization pattern will be explained in Section 8.3.4.
14
For each state, the total cumulative value of the objective function is identical to the one reported on page 2 of
Fig. 8.7.

169
Since no VARSYS plant was added in first three years (1998, 1999 and 2000), the
configurations for these years (at the bottom of page 3) are identified by zero sets or projects
for all expansion candidates, and zero construction cost and salvage value. The total costs for
these years are simply the sum of the corresponding operation (fuel + O&M) costs and costs
of unserved energy. For the remaining years, since there are new capacity additions, all values
of the above-mentioned cost items are reported.
The above-described summary table with the DYNPRO results is very useful for having a
glance at the best solutions reported by DYNPRO. Its usefulness for the process of finding the
optimal solution is explained in Section 8.3.4.
Since for the present run of DYNPRO the output option IOPT is "1" (Intermediate output),
after reporting the solution for the run in [Link] file the program prints the list of
the states considered in the run in [Link] file. This list is shown on page 4 of Fig.
8.7. It should be noted that for variable expansion runs, with hundreds of configurations, this
list can add several pages to the DYNPRO printout. Thus the convenience of setting IOPT to
"0" (Minimum output) for variable expansion runs.
During program execution, DYNPRO verifies the validity of some input data and the
compatibility of the information of the files called upon by the program, and in case of an
"error" the execution of the program will be stopped and a message will be reported in the
printout. Section 8 of Chapter 13 describes the error and warning messages for the DYNPRO
module.

170
 WASP COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE

DYNPRO MODULE
CASE STUDY
Demonstration Case (Fixed Expansion)
**************************************
* *
* LIST OF VAR. EXPAN. CANDIDATES *
* *
**************************************
* THERMAL PLANTS *
* *
* [Link] NAME *
* 1 V-CC *
* 2 VLG1 *
* 3 VLG2 *
* 4 VCOA *
* 5 NUCL *
**************************************
* HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS *
* *
* [Link] NAME *
* 6 HYD1 *
* 7 HYD2 *
* *
**************************************
ALL COSTS WILL BE DISCOUNTED TO THE YEAR 1998
BASE YEAR FOR COST ESCALATION CALCULATION 1998
FIRST YEAR OF STUDY = 1998
DURATION OF STUDY = 20 YEARS
DISCOUNT RATE APPLIED TO ALL DOMESTIC COSTS - %/YR = 10.00
DISCOUNT RATE APPLIED TO ALL FOREIGN COSTS - %/YR = 10.00
***** INPUT OF YEAR 1998 *****
INDEX = 2
-- C A P I T A L C O S T S ($/KW) -- PLANT CONSTR.
(DEPRECIABLE PART) (NON-DEPREC. PART) LIFE I.D.C. TIME
PLANT DOMESTIC FOREIGN DOMESTIC FOREIGN (YEARS) (%) (YEARS)
V-CC 318.0 477.0 0.0 0.0 25. 11.92 3.0
VLG1 594.0 891.0 0.0 0.0 25. 19.20 5.0
VLG2 544.0 817.0 0.0 0.0 25. 19.20 5.0
VCOA 495.0 743.0 0.0 0.0 25. 19.20 5.0
NUCL 730.0 1703.0 0.0 0.0 30. 26.00 7.0
HYD1 HYDRO PROJECT(S) CAPITAL COSTS
VHY2 841.0 841.0 50. 22.67 6.0
VHY3 970.0 970.0 50. 22.67 6.0
HYD2 HYDRO PROJECT(S) CAPITAL COSTS
VHY1 742.0 742.0 50. 19.20 5.0
VHY4 866.0 866.0 50. 19.20 5.0
INDEX = 13
NUMBER OF BEST SOLUTIONS REQUESTED IS 1
INDEX = 16
USE SINKING FUND DEPRECIATION METHOD FOR SALVAGE VALUE CALCULATION
INDEX = 11
COEFFICIENTS FOR CALCULATION OF COST OF ENERGY NOT SERVED - IN $/KWH :
CF1 = 1.0000 CF2 = 0.0000 CF3 = 0.0000
INDEX = 12
CRITICAL LOSS-OF-LOAD PROBABILITY - IN (%) = 100.0000

Figure 8.7. (page 1) DYNPRO printout for a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem.
DYNPRO Run-1. Cover page and input information ([Link] file).

171
INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 1 TO 1
950258.
1

***** INPUT OF YEAR 1999 *****

INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 2 TO 2
2424510.
1

***** INPUT OF YEAR 2000 *****

INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 3 TO 3
3085624.
2

***** INPUT OF YEAR 2001 *****

INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 4 TO 4
4052123.
3

***** INPUT OF YEAR 2002 *****

INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 5 TO 5
6845700.
4

***** INPUT OF YEAR 2003 *****

INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 6 TO 6
8387157.
5

***** INPUT OF YEAR 2004 *****

INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 7 TO 7
9753139.
6

……………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………

***** INPUT OF YEAR 2014 *****

INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 17 TO 17
17466156.
16

***** INPUT OF YEAR 2015 *****

INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 18 TO 18
17933884.
17

***** INPUT OF YEAR 2016 *****

INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 19 TO 19
18367340.
18

***** INPUT OF YEAR 2017 *****

INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 20 TO 20
18711196.
19

Figure 8.7. (page 2) DYNPRO printout for a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem.
DYNPRO Run-1. Values of objective function and optimal path ([Link] file).

172
SOLUTION # 1 VARIABLE ALTERNATIVES BY YEAR
YEAR------ PRESENT WORTH COST OF THE YEAR ( K$ )------ [Link]. LOLP V-CC VLG2
NUCL HYD2
CONCST SALVAL OPCOST ENSCST TOTAL (CUMM.) % VLG1 VCOA HYD1
---------------------------------------------------
2017 300999 271740 313177 1420 343856 18711196 0.137 3 4 6 9 4 2 2

2016 203931 164939 338457 56007 433456 18367340 0.657 3 4 5 9 3 2 2

2015 288814 212624 352033 39504 467728 17933884 0.518 3 3 5 8 3 2 2

2014 239201 155668 385662 76249 545444 17466156 0.877 3 3 5 8 2 2 2

2013 362660 211206 399257 310011 860723 16920712 2.807 3 3 4 7 2 2 2

2012 189082 98359 418173 65572 574468 16059989 0.613 3 2 3 6 2 2 2

2011 533238 255656 437854 7309 722744 15485521 0.131 3 2 3 5 2 2 2

2010 350214 144380 474695 72192 752721 14762777 0.569 3 2 2 5 1 2 2

2009 251669 91995 490882 1509 652065 14010056 0.222 3 2 1 4 1 2 2

2008 0 0 515729 43001 558730 13357991 0.355 3 2 1 3 1 2 2

2007 466134 132593 544806 169 878516 12799261 0.033 3 2 1 3 1 2 2

2006 1015979 272306 539381 325 1283379 11920745 0.052 3 2 0 2 1 2 2

2005 385263 95136 593171 929 884227 10637366 0.121 3 2 0 1 0 2 2

2004 981056 233669 617731 864 1365982 9753139 0.106 3 1 0 1 0 2 1

2003 505058 96635 672256 460778 1541457 8387157 2.585 2 1 0 1 0 1 1

2002 896059 132584 688576 1341526 2793578 6845701 6.168 1 1 0 1 0 0 1

2001 358377 41672 647643 2152 966499 4052123 0.198 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000 0 0 655157 5957 661114 3085624 0.458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1999 0 0 664444 809809 1474252 2424510 4.304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1998 0 0 673935 276323 950258 950258 1.682 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 8.7. (page 3) DYNPRO printout for a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem.
DYNPRO Run-1. Results of economic calculations ([Link] file).

173
 1 STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 STATE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 STATE 1 1 0 1 0 0 1

6 STATE 2 1 0 1 0 1 1

7 STATE 3 1 0 1 0 2 1

8 STATE 3 2 0 1 0 2 2

9 STATE 3 2 0 2 1 2 2

10 STATE 3 2 1 3 1 2 2

11 STATE 3 2 1 3 1 2 2

12 STATE 3 2 1 4 1 2 2

13 STATE 3 2 2 5 1 2 2

14 STATE 3 2 3 5 2 2 2

15 STATE 3 2 3 6 2 2 2

16 STATE 3 3 4 7 2 2 2

17 STATE 3 3 5 8 2 2 2

18 STATE 3 3 5 8 3 2 2

19 STATE 3 4 5 9 3 2 2

20 STATE 3 4 6 9 4 2 2
Figure 8.7. (page 4) DYNPRO printout for a fixed expansion plan of the sample problem.
DYNPRO Run-1. List of states considered in the run ([Link] file).

174
8.3.3. Input data for dynamic expansion plans

The execution of DYNPRO for a dynamic (or variable) expansion plan is essentially the same
as for the fixed expansion schedule except for a few changes introduced in the input data.
Figure 8.8 shows the content of [Link] file for variable expansion runs of DYNPRO
for the sample problem, which is very similar to that used for the fixed expansion plan (see
Fig. 8.6) with a few changes. First, the type-X record in Fig. 8.8 has a zero for both printing
options in order to reduce the output of the run.

The rest of the data record types and values listed in Fig. 8.8 are the same as described for the
DYNPRO run of the fixed expansion plan (see Section 8.3.1). The use of the various data
record types for dynamic expansion runs of the DYNPRO module is left to the discretion of
the user, according to the needs of the case study. It is however recommended to read
carefully the remarks on this subject made in Section 8.4.

Demonstration Case (Variable Expansion) 0 0

1998 1998 1998 20
10. 10.
2
318. 477. 25. 0. 0. 11.92 3. 1 V-CC
594. 891. 25. 0. 0. 19.2 5. 2 VLG1
544. 817. 25. 0. 0. 19.2 5. 3 VLG2
495. 743. 25. 0. 0. 19.2 5. 4 VCOA
730. 1703. 30. 0. 0. 26.0 7. 5 NUCL
50. 6 HYD1
841. 841. 22.67 6 HY2
970 970. 67 6 VHY3
50. 7 HYD2
742. 742. 19.2 5. VHY1
866. 866. 19.2 5. VHY4
13
1
16
1
11
1. 0. 0.
12
100.
1 (End of year 1998)
1 (End of year 1999)
1 (End of year 2000)
1 (End of year 2001)
1 (End of year 2002)
1 (End of year 2003)
1 (End of year 2004)
1 (End of year 2005)
1 (End of year 2006)
1 (End of year 2007)
1 (End of year 2008)
1 (End of year 2009)
1 (End of year 2010)
1 (End of year 2011)
1 (End of year 2012)
1 (End of year 2013)
1 (End of year 2014)
1 (End of year 2015)
1 (End of year 2016)
1 (End of year 2017)

Figure 8.8. DYNPRO input data for variable expansion plans of the sample problem.

175
8.3.4. Printouts for dynamic expansion plans

The printout for variable expansion DYNPRO runs is basically the same as for the fixed
expansion plan described in Section 8.3.2 but, since the printing options are both "0" for
variable expansion runs, neither the data read from the VARSYS file nor the listing of states
considered in the run are included in the printout for these runs. As mentioned earlier, this
reduces considerably the size of the printout.

Figures 8.9 and 8.10 illustrate a sample of the DYNPRO printout for two dynamic expansion
runs of the series made in the search for the reference optimal solution of the sample problem
(DEMOCASE). Figure 8.9 for the first of such runs (DYNPRO Run-2), which uses the
[Link] and [Link] files created by CONGEN Run-2 and MERSIM
Run-2, respectively, and Figure 8.10 for the last run (DYNPRO Run-3) which uses the
respective files created by CONGEN Run-3 and MERSIM Run-3. Only part of the printout is
shown in each case.

The printout for DYNPRO Run-2 starts with the cover page identifying the run (not shown in
Fig. 8.9), followed by the listing of input data for the run as shown in page 1 of Fig. 8.9. Next,
the program prints the so-called optimization pattern of the run, as illustrated on page 2 of
Fig. 8.9 for the first few years of the study period.

The optimization pattern report produced by DYNPRO is very useful for tracing the optimal
solution and the path of valid configurations (states) from any given year. In this part of the
output, the objective function for each configuration considered by DYNPRO (10 per line) for
each year of study is printed. The numbers below the objective function values show which
state in the previous year preceded that particular state and are given in the same order as the
values of the objective function.

For example, page 2 of Fig. 8.9 shows that for the sixth year of study (year 2003), this
DYNPRO run considered states: 30 to 80 (51 states in total). This is followed by the
respective values of the objective function of these states, and the number of the state in the
preceding year (2002) connected to the sub-optimum path. Therefore, state number 30 has a
value of the objective function of 7407140 (thousand $, or K$ in the printout), and is preceded
by state number 6 of year 2002, which in turn arises from state number 4 of year 2001, and so
on. The path for state number 30 backward is: 6 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 (state 1 is the fixed system in
1998).

Similarly, the path for each of the states considered in this particular DYNPRO run (1363
states in total) can be traced by looking at the listing of the optimization pattern for the run.

In this listing, the states which would be given a zero for both, the objective function value
and the number of the preceding year state, correspond to states not allowed by the
constraints that may be imposed by the user in DYNPRO (for example, a too constraining
critical value of annual loss-of-load probability in some years).

In some cases, the listing of objective function values may contain stars (*) for one or more
states of some years and a number for the respective preceding year state. This can be
explained as follows:

If the preceding year state is shown as zero ("0"), this means that there is no possible
transition from the previous year (i.e., this year state cannot be reached from any of the

176
"accepted" states in the previous year) even if the current year state fulfils the DYNPRO
constraints.

If the preceding year state is marked with a number (not zero), this simply means that the
format for printing the objective function value has been over flown (i.e. this year state's
objective function is greater than or equal to 1011 K$).

Page 3 of Fig. 8.9 shows the report for the best solution (#1) found in the DYNPRO Run-2
which is similar to the one shown in Fig. 8.7 for the fixed expansion run except that here
some of the states contain a DYNPRO "message." This is represented by a sign (+) or (-) to
the right of the number of sets or projects of each expansion candidate, to indicate what
restriction used in CONGEN has acted as a constraint on the solution.

For example, in year 2002 the state includes 2 sets of the expansion candidate number 1 (V-
CC), followed by a sign (+) which means that more than 2 units of this plant may lead to a
better solution (only up to 2 units of V-CC were permitted in this year in the CONGEN Run-
2). Similarly, in year 2003 more than 3 units of this plant may lead to a better solution (only
up to 3 units were permitted in this year in the CONGEN Run-2).

On the other hand, the sign (-) indicates that the minimum number of sets or projects required
in CONGEN for the respective plant in the year is too high. Therefore, the configuration for
year 2005 shows 1- unit of the expansion candidate number 2 (VLG1), telling the user that
less than 1 unit of this plant may lead to a better solution (in CONGEN Run-2 for this year,
one unit of VLG1 was specified as the minimum number of sets).

Number of sets or projects not marked with a sign mean either that the solution was not
constrained by the restrictions in CONGEN if the tunnel width for the respective plant in that
year was not zero in CONGEN, or that DYNPRO did not have another choice (i.e. tunnel
width for the plant is zero in the respective year).

In CONGEN Run-2, in year 2010, for example, 5 units of VCOA and 2 projects each of
HYD1 and HYD2 appear without any sign. In this case, the tunnel width for VCOA was 2
and the minimum number of sets 4; the program had a choice of selecting 4, 5 or 6 units of
this candidate plant, and selected 5 units which did not hit the upper or lower limits of the
choices, and hence the result is without a sign. In the case of HYD1 and HYD2, on the other
hand, the tunnel width was zero (because no more projects were available) and the program
did not have any choice, thus showing no sign for these candidates. For variable expansion
DYNPRO runs, a similar printout is produced by the program for as many best solutions as
requested by the user in DYNPRO Input screen (if the field is left empty, DYNPRO reports
1 best solution).

The messages in the DYNPRO printout for variable expansion plans help the user in finding
the optimum solution for the case study. Interpreting these messages, the user should proceed
to execute new WASP-IV iterations involving sequential runs of Modules 4 to 6, modifying
each time the restrictions in CONGEN accordingly. (If for a candidate negative sign appears,
its minimum number of sets should be reduced by one, and if a positive sign appears this
should be increased by one). The process should be repeated until the best solution reported
by DYNPRO is free of messages or, eventually, until the restrictions in CONGEN can no
longer be relaxed due to some physical constraints. At each iteration, the value of the
objective function for the best solution of DYNPRO is to be compared with the respective

177
value for the best solution found in the previous iteration in order to determine that in fact a
better solution has been achieved with the new iteration.

Table 8.2 summarizes the configurations for year 2017 of the three best solutions of the last
run of the variable expansion schedule (DYNPRO Run-3) and for one best solution for the
first variable expansion schedule (DYNPRO Run-2) as well as for the fixed expansion
schedule (DYNPRO Run-1). Table 8.2 also compares the objective functions of each solution.
It is seen that the second best solution of the last run of the variable expansion plan
(DYNPRO Run-3) increased the value of the objective function by only about 0.0044%
compared to the optimal solution whereas the fixed expansion schedule resulted in an
objective function 18.89% higher than that of the optimal solution. Also, comparing the
objective function of the best solution for the first and last runs of the variable expansion
plans, it can be seen that the dynamic optimization process reduced this value by 1.34%.
[Note: The objective function stands for present-worth of total values expansion costs. Thus,
these apparently small differences in the objective function values can represent a large
difference in terms of the annual expenditures associated to each solution].
Table 8.2. Variation of objective function for the various DYNPRO runs of DEMOCASE
Configuration for year 2017: Number of units or projects O.F.
of each expansion candidate
DYNPR Solutio Cum. Value Change
O n 6
$x10 %
run
V- VLG VLG VCO NUC HYD HYD
CC 1 2 A L 1 2
1 4+ 1 6 9 4+ 2 2 15738036 -
2 4+ 0 5- 10+ 4+ 2 2 15738732 0.0044
3 3 4+ 0 7+ 9 4+ 2 2 15739984 0.0124
2 1 4+ 3- 5- 9 4+ 2 2 15948847 1.34

1 1 3 4 6 9 4 2 2 18711196 18.89

Regarding the report of the optimal solution in Fig. 8.10, it can be seen that this still contains
some messages concerning the constraints used in the respective CONGEN run (CONGEN
Run-3). Some messages apply to the number of units of expansion candidates 1 and 5 (V-CC
and NUCL), implying that a better solution could be achieved and a new CONGEN,
MERSIM, DYNPRO iteration should be carried out opening the respective tunnel widths in
the CONGEN run. However, in this sample problem, it has been assumed that the pace of
addition for these two candidates can not be increased from the maximum allowed in the
CONGEN constraints. Hence, these signs can be ignored (accepted) in the optimal solution.
Nevertheless, if deemed necessary, sensitivity analysis may be carried out to evaluate the
impact of relaxing these constraints. Furthermore, the number of hydro projects, for both
types, appears without any sign in the final optimal solution. This is due to the fact that after
observing that these projects are accepted in all iterations in their first years of availability
thus there was no need to keep tunnel width open for these candidates. Messages for the
minimum number of sets or projects (-) may also appear in the optimal solution but the
dynamic optimization process can be stopped. This occurs when the minimum number of sets
or projects of the respective plant cannot be reduced any further owing to commitments of
plant additions for the particular system.

178
Alternatively, the above messages can be eliminated from the DYNPRO printout by simply
executing a new WASP-IV iteration (executing Modules 4 to 6 in the same order). In the new
CONGEN run, the expansion schedule is made "fixed" for the plants which are still acting as
a constraint on the optimum solution. This is achieved by specifying as minimum number of
sets for the CONGEN run, the same number of sets or projects contained in the optimal
solution for the respective plants in each applicable year and setting the corresponding tunnel
widths to zero. It should be stressed that regardless of the expansion rules and energy policies
provided by the regulating authorities, it is always convenient to run an overall optimization
of WASP-IV for the case study, where only the physical constraints imposed by the
construction periods of thermal and hydro expansion candidates, or the total amount of
domestic fuel available for expansion, are respected. In such a run, additional constraints
related to the availability of imported fuels should be waived. This will permit to provide a
feedback as to how expensive the chosen "reference" optimal solution is when compared to
the overall "unconstrained" optimal solution.

ALL COSTS WILL BE DISCOUNTED TO THE YEAR 1998

BASE YEAR FOR COST ESCALATION CALCULATION 1998
FIRST YEAR OF STUDY = 1998
DURATION OF STUDY = 20 YEARS
DISCOUNT RATE APPLIED TO ALL DOMESTIC COSTS - %/YR = 10.00
DISCOUNT RATE APPLIED TO ALL FOREIGN COSTS - %/YR = 10.00

***** INPUT OF YEAR 1998 *****

INDEX = 2

-- C A P I T A L C O S T S ($/KW) -- PLANT CONSTR.

(DEPRECIABLE PART) (NON-DEPREC. PART) LIFE I.D.C. TIME
PLANT DOMESTIC FOREIGN DOMESTIC FOREIGN (YEARS) (%) (YEARS)
V-CC 318.0 477.0 0.0 0.0 25. 11.92 3.0
VLG1 594.0 891.0 0.0 0.0 25. 19.20 5.0
VLG2 544.0 817.0 0.0 0.0 25. 19.20 5.0
VCOA 495.0 743.0 0.0 0.0 25. 19.20 5.0
NUCL 730.0 1703.0 0.0 0.0 30. 26.00 7.0

HYD1 HYDRO PROJECT(S) CAPITAL COSTS

VHY2 841.0 841.0 50. 22.67 6.0
VHY3 970.0 970.0 50. 22.67 6.0

HYD2 HYDRO PROJECT(S) CAPITAL COSTS

VHY1 742.0 742.0 50. 19.20 5.0
VHY4 866.0 866.0 50. 19.20 5.0

INDEX = 13
NUMBER OF BEST SOLUTIONS REQUESTED IS 1

INDEX = 16
USE SINKING FUND DEPRECIATION METHOD FOR SALVAGE VALUE CALCULATION
INDEX = 11
COEFFICIENTS FOR CALCULATION OF COST OF ENERGY NOT SERVED - IN $/KWH :
CF1= 1.0000 CF2 = 0.0000 CF3 = 0.0000
INDEX = 12
CRITICAL LOSS-OF-LOAD PROBABILITY - IN (%) = 100.0000

Figure 8.9. (page 1) DYNPRO printout for the first variable expansion plan of the sample
problem (DEMOCASE). DYNPRO Run-2. Input data for the run ([Link] file).

179
INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 1 TO 1
950258.
1
***** INPUT OF YEAR 1999 *****
INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 2 TO 2
2424510.
1
***** INPUT OF YEAR 2000 *****
INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 3 TO 3
3085624.
2
***** INPUT OF YEAR 2001 *****
INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 4 TO 5
4052123. 4379426.
3 3
***** INPUT OF YEAR 2002 *****
INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 6 TO 29
6409611. 5486438. 6194568. 8000410. 6545188. 6655309. 5916480. 6923822. 6415188. 7812824.
6575516. 6054450. 6448556. 5576226. 6845700. 6186882. 7967726. 6554124. 6680938. 6008126.
6905681. 6456951. 7752502. 6661350.
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4
***** INPUT OF YEAR 2003 *****
INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 30 TO 80
7392832. 6430792. 6652812. 7347698. 6878634. 6740648. 6808877. 7132873. 7033606. 9700295.
7514756. 7260176. 7523770. 6583683. 6807356. 7385607. 7034131. 6803549. 6964632. 7212113.
7189927. 9742083. 7562178. 7416664. 7221879. 6509423. 6732503. 7318289. 6958928. 6722966.
6889405. 7112340. 7114464. 9604904. 7482974. 7341087. 7150152. 7375392. 6663260. 7080878.
6887646. 7359825. 7114723. 6830770. 7045481. 9457830. 7201966. 7270870. 9638218. 7572982.
7497584.
6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 11
7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
7 11 7 7 17 7 7 7 7 7
7 7 7 24 7 7 17 17 7 7
7 7 7 7 7 24 7 7 24 7
7
***** INPUT OF YEAR 2004 *****
INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 81 TO 147
7514259. 7714180. 7651426. 7626040. 7849764. 7841854. 8050399. 8416894. 7453190. 7650582.
7851132. 7564984. 7788520. 7762476. 7987239. 7962792. 8187900. 8901383. 7939624. 7913664.
8138688. 8113446. 8338749. 8052681. 8278553. 8211712. 8251682. 8477608. 8495776. 8451800.
7584512. 7784800. 7722212. 7696448. 7920792. 7896466. 8121392. 8229108. 7523396. 7721230.
7740324. 7921958. 7635271. 7859558. 7833246. 8058347. 8716630. 8033706. 8258940. 8514672.
8490301. 8714414. 7785732. 8010682. 7984512. 8209832. 8631076. 8184372. 8409971. 7972813.
8123866. 8349899. 8187512. 8322996. 8549029. 8439331. 8523232.
31 31 31 31 31 31 31 42 31 31
31 31 31 31 31 31 31 42 31 31
31 31 31 31 31 47 31 31 47 31
31 31 31 31 31 31 31 66 31 31
31 31 31 31 31 31 73 31 31 66
66 66 31 31 31 31 69 31 31 73
31 31 73 31 31 73 31
***** INPUT OF YEAR 2005 *****

Figure 8.9. (page 2) DYNPRO printout for the first variable expansion plan of the sample
problem (DEMOCASE). DYNPRO Run-2. Objective function values and optimization path
([Link] file).

180
INDEX = 1
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION STATE 148 TO 196
8495537. 8673624. 8613185. 8792980. 8789884. 9145934. 8968010. 9279552. 9457789. 8739292.
8718453. 8915230. 8896406. 9093909. 8838080. 9035887. 9375229. 9013996. 9212277. 9718324.
9191997. 9390452. 9164353. 8437824. 8613846. 9109214. 8792155. 8601391. 8732021. 8806285.
8908671. 9103667. 9086766. 9222631. 9397927. 9576355. 8858158. 8836936. 9034147. 9015177.
9212871. 8957162. 9155127. 9388152. 9133085. 9331543. 9693081. 9311121. 9509696.
89 89 89 92 89 92 89 130 130 133
133 133 133 133 133 133 140 133 133 140
133 133 118 89 89 121 89 92 89 92
89 92 89 130 130 130 133 133 133 133
133 133 133 140 133 133 140 133 133

SOLUTION # 1 VARIABLE ALTERNATIVES BY YEAR

YEAR------ PRESENT WORTH COST OF THE YEAR ( K$ )------ [Link]. LOLP V-CC VLG2 NUCL HYD2
CONCST SALVAL OPCOST ENSCST TOTAL (CUMM.) % VLG1 VCOA HYD1
----------------------------------------------------
2017 300999 271740 311618 354 341230 15948847 0.114 4+ 3- 5- 9 4+ 2 2
2016 203931 164940 338809 461 378261 15607617 0.132 4+ 3- 4- 9 3+ 2 2
2015 288814 212624 350419 641 427250 15229356 0.159 4+ 2- 4- 8 3+ 2 2
2014 239201 155668 383508 533 467574 14802106 0.129 4+ 2- 4- 8 2+ 2 2
2013 443326 258182 405351 235 590730 14334532 0.064 4+ 2- 3- 7 2+ 2 2
2012 484761 259013 413399 1056 640203 13743802 0.198 4+ 1- 3 5- 2+ 2 2
2011 110385 51181 450818 1349 511372 13103599 0.228 4+ 1- 2- 5 1 2 2
2010 350214 144380 472351 656 678841 12592227 0.118 4+ 1- 1- 5 1+ 2 2
2009 251669 91995 476117 1379 637169 11913386 0.200 4+ 1- 0 4 1+ 2 2

2008 276836 89435 496430 665 684495 11276217 0.104 4+ 1- 0 3 1+ 2 2

2007 446579 135620 514134 770 825863 10591722 0.109 4+ 1- 0 2- 1+ 2 2

2006 681008 188781 533281 1060 1026567 9765859 0.134 4+ 1- 0 1- 1+ 2 1-

2005 458148 99618 594439 591 953560 8739292 0.081 4+ 1- 0 1 0 2+ 1-

2004 1002212 257570 608340 1958 1354940 7785733 0.204 3 0 0 1 0 2+ 1+

2003 296180 47997 686748 9425 944355 6430793 0.686 3+ 0 0 1 0 0 0

2002 816229 112702 723419 7370 1434315 5486438 0.537 2+ 0 0 1 0 0 0

2001 358377 41672 647643 2152 966499 4052123 0.198 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000 0 0 655157 5957 661114 3085624 0.458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1999 0 0 664444 809809 1474252 2424510 4.304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1998 0 0 673935 276323 950258 950258 1.682 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 8.9. (page 3) DYNPRO printout for the first variable expansion plan of the sample
problem (DEMOCASE). DYNPRO Run-2. “Best” solution for the run ([Link] file).

181
SOLUTION # 1 VARIABLE ALTERNATIVES BY YEAR

YEAR------ PRESENT WORTH COST OF THE YEAR ( K$ )------ [Link]. LOLP V-CC VLG2 NUCL HYD2

CONCST SALVAL OPCOST ENSCST TOTAL (CUMM.) % VLG1 VCOA HYD1

-----------------------------------------------------

2017 300999 271740 308314 623 338196 15738036 0.177 4+ 1 6 9 4+ 2 2

2016 129146 104453 334416 807 359915 15399840 0.205 4+ 1 5 9 3+ 2 2

2015 364209 267362 350962 641 448449 15039925 0.159 4+ 1 5 8 3+ 2 2

2014 322135 209640 378761 963 492219 14591476 0.207 4+ 1 4 8 2+ 2 2

2013 263121 153235 397336 854 508075 14099257 0.175 4+ 1 2 7 2+ 2 2

2012 289433 150559 412761 1010 552644 13591182 0.187 4+ 1 1 6 2+ 2 2

2011 422852 204475 417153 1272 636802 13038538 0.212 4+ 1 0 5 2+ 2 2

2010 228790 94321 458579 1277 594325 12401736 0.202 4+ 1 0 5 1+ 2 2

2009 397404 145267 476117 1379 729632 11807411 0.200 4+ 1 0 4 1+ 2 2

2008 276836 89436 490164 1329 678892 11077779 0.184 4+ 0 0 3 1+ 2 2

2007 304519 86621 507057 1551 726506 10398887 0.196 4+ 0 0 2 1+ 2 2

2006 681008 188781 522111 1448 1015786 9672381 0.175 4+ 0 0 1 1+ 2 2

2005 540360 128861 582440 858 994798 8656595 0.109 4+ 0 0 1 0 2 2

2004 711802 182935 607398 1842 1138107 7661798 0.192 4+ 0 0 0 0 2 1

2003 505058 96635 678416 3802 1090640 6523691 0.317 4+ 0 0 0 0 1 1

2002 773226 115623 718341 4984 1380928 5433051 0.380 3+ 0 0 0 0 0 1

2001 358377 41672 647643 2152 966499 4052123 0.198 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000 0 0 655157 5957 661114 3085624 0.458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1999 0 0 664444 809809 1474252 2424510 4.304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1998 0 0 673935 276323 950258 950258 1.682 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 8.10. DYNPRO printout for the last variable expansion plan of the sample problem
(DEMOCASE). DYNPRO Run-3. Optimal solution ([Link] file).

182
8.4. Special remarks on the DYNPRO capabilities

As mentioned in Section 8.1, DYNPRO is designed to calculate cost of each alternative policy
for system expansion based on a performance criterion or an objective function. This
objective function is evaluated as the algebraic sum of the present-worth values of all costs
associated with each configuration integrating a given expansion policy through the study
period. Present-worth (discounting) calculations are carried out using the appropriate discount
rates (for foreign and local costs) given by the user and certain assumptions for the cash flows
on the various expenditures. Escalation of costs can be also applied as the study progresses
and using the appropriate escalation ratios specified by the user. These calculations also
require the definition by the user of base years for present-worth (JHRPWB) and escalation
(JHRFUL). These concepts were discussed briefly in Section 1.2.

It should be noted that the main assumptions behind the definitions of the reference years
(JHRPWB, JHRFUL) to be used as input data for a DYNPRO run are the following:

All cost information (capital or operating) is supposed to be given in monetary units of the
base year for escalation (JHRFUL). Thus, no escalation effect is applied for the years up to
JHRFUL (even if erroneously specified by the user) and the escalation effect in any year after
JHRFUL takes into account the effect of any escalation in the preceding years combined with
that of the year being considered.

The base year for discounting (JHRPWB) simply represents a reference year to which all cash
flows associated with an expansion policy are discounted, supposing a certain occurrence of
the expenditure flow and using appropriate discount factors. The discount factor for a given
expenditure combines the effect of discount rates specified for the period of time from
JHRPWB up to the moment the expenditure is assumed to occur.

According to the WASP-IV capabilities to handle input information, DYNPRO can handle
different escalation ratios for type of cost component, for type of expenditure and for type of
plant. Additionally, these escalation ratios can be varied from one year to another over the
study period. The idea behind these dimensions is to permit the user executing a broad range
of sensitivity studies for his/her case, once the optimal solution has been found.

183
 CHAPTER 9. EXECUTION OF REPROBAT

REPROBAT is Module 7 of WASP-IV and has the purpose of presenting either total or
partial results of an electric power system planning study in a concise and easily read form.
Partial results for the first three WASP modules can also be obtained as soon as any of them
has been run successfully without the need of having run CONGEN, MERSIM and DYNPRO
(see Chapter 10). Once all previous six modules of WASP have been run successfully, a full
REPROBAT report can be obtained. Partial reports can also be obtained by deleting the
portions not required. For example, data on cash flow of construction costs may be requested
for only a part of the study period. Also one complete module of WASP could be dropped
from the report as explained in Section 9.2.
If a complete report of the optimal solution (or eventually of the best solution found by the
latest DYNPRO run) is to be printed by REPROBAT, it is necessary to execute first a
resimulation (REMERSIM) of this solution as described in Section 7.3.5. REPROBAT can
also be used to produce a report on a fixed expansion schedule. Again, to have a complete
report of the fixed expansion schedule printed by REPROBAT, it is necessary to execute first
a resimulation (REMERSIM) of the respective expansion schedule. The format of the report
printed by REPROBAT is such that the printout can be included in the study report.
To start the execution of REPROBAT the user should click the REPROBAT button in the
WASP Modules screen (Fig. 2.11). The REPROBAT main screen will be displayed (Figure
9.1). This screen has five options that the user can activate by clicking one of the following
buttons:
• Enter/Modify REPROBAT Input, to enter or modify data for the module;
• Execute REPROBAT, to execute the module, after completing the data
entering/modifying;
• View REPROBAT Output, to view or print the module output;
• Start Sensitivity Analysis, to perform the desired sensitivity analyses (see Chapter
11);
• Back, to return to the previous screen.

Figure 9.1. Main screen REPROBAT.

184
9.1. Input/output files

REPROBAT uses an input file, named [Link], created by the Windows interface
using the data provided by the user in the input screens described in the next section. The
REPROBAT input data are meant to define the necessary options for producing the reports by
the present run. Besides, it uses various intermediate files, produced by all other modules for
which the reports to be produced are selected. The results are reported in the
[Link] file, which can be included in the study report, while [Link] is
a debug file. The [Link] output file should be reviewed carefully to examine
correctness of the results of analyses.

9.2. Input data preparation

When selecting the Enter/Modify REPROBAT Input option in the main screen
REPROBAT, the input data main screen REPROBAT Input Data, shown in Figure 9.2, is
displayed.

Figure 9.2. REPROBAT input data main screen.

In this screen one can enter/modify the following types of data:

• initial and last year of study;
• first and last year of planning period (for which the cash flow details are shown);
• printout options (IOPLST); if these options are activated by clicking in the
corresponding fields, the following categories of input data and results are included in
the report of the study:
• Load system description (LOADSY);
• Fixed system description (FIXSYS);
• Variable system description (VARSYS);
• Constraints in configuration generator module (CONGEN);
• Economic parameters and additional constraints (DYNPRO);
• Expected cost of operation (MERSIM);
• Optimum solution details (DYNPRO);

185
 • Cash flow of construction and interest during construction – IDC costs
(REPROBAT).
If the Optimum solution details option is activated, new sub-options are available for
reporting detailed information on the simulation of system operation for the optimal solution,
namely:

• Fuel stock and consumption of thermal plant details (sub-option IOPSIM); and

• Group limitation report (sub-option IOPPOL).

These options can only be used if a resimulation (REMERSIM) of the best solution found by
DYNPRO (or eventually the optimal solution) has been carried out prior to the REPROBAT
run.

The following output alternatives (sub-option IOPSIM) are available for the Fuel stock and
consumption of thermal plant details output:

• Maximum details: the report includes output tables relating to:

• fuel stock by fuel type (kton);

• electricity generation by fuel (plant) type, by hydro-condition and weighted by

probabilities of hydro-conditions (GWh);

• fuel consumption by fuel type, by hydro-condition and weighted by probabilities of

hydro-conditions (kton).

• Only weighted values: same as the option above, but no reports on electricity
generation and fuel consumption per hydro-condition;

• No report (default value): no report printed relating to fuel stock, electricity

generation and fuel consumption.

Similarly, the following output alternatives (sub-option IOPPOL) are available for the Group
limitation report output:

• Maximum details: the report includes the following type of tables:

• pollutant #1 by fuel type, by hydro-condition and weighted by probabilities of hydro-

conditions (kT);

• pollutant #2 by fuel type, by hydro-condition and weighted by probabilities of hydro-

conditions (kT);

• actual contribution versus imposed limits of group-limitations.

• Only weighted values: same as the option above, but no reports on pollutants per
hydro-condition;

• No report (default value): no printed report relating to pollutants and to actual

contribution versus imposed limits of group-limitations.

186
If the Cash Flow Details option is activated (IOPLST #8 > 0), the following sub-options are
available:
• Yearly cash flows: if activated (IOPCON(1) > 0), calculation and detailed output of
cash flows of domestic and foreign construction costs by year and by plant and of the
summary table “Capital Cash Flow Summary of Candidates” containing the columns
relating to the depreciable and non-depreciable construction costs;
• IDC details: if activated (IOPCON(2) > 0) and if previous option is also active
(IOPCON(1) > 0), in addition to the previous printout, detailed output of cash flows of
domestic and foreign IDC costs by year and by plant are calculated and reported;
• Capital cost + IDC: if activated (IOPCON(3) > 0) and if previous options are also
active (IOPCON(1) > 0 and IOPCON(2) > 0), in addition to the previous printout,
detailed output of cash flows of domestic and foreign costruction + IDC costs by year
and by plant are calculated and reported;
The following remarks have to be made in relation with the previous printout options:
• IOPCON sub-options are of cumulative nature: each subsequent active sub-option
asks the previous ones to be active;
• The summary table “Capital Cash Flow Summary of Candidates” is printed in all cases
but its content (columns) depends on the active sub-options in each case;
• If cost data for FIXSYS plants (record type-7) are entered in REPROBAT then option
IOPLST #8 and its sub-options IOPCON are internally activated by the program and the
respective cash flow details are automatically calculated and reported. In addition, the
following two summary tables are printed: “Capital Cash Flow Summary of Decided
System” and “Global Capital Cash Flow Summary”
In addition, by clicking the appropriate button from the bottom of REPROBAT Input Data
screen (Fig. 9.2), one can advance to the following subsequent screens:
• Cover Page Details (Figure 9.3), by clicking the Details of cover page of report button;
• FIXSYS Plants Cost Data (Figure 9.4), by clicking the Cost Data for FIXSYS Plants
button; and
• VARSYS Plants Cost Data (Figure 9.5), by clicking the Annual Dist. of Costs of
VARSYS Plants button.
The following information on the WASP study can be provided in Cover Page Details screen
(Fig. 9.3):
• date of the report;
• author(s) of the study or any other text to be written in two lines after the header
"STUDY CARRIED OUT BY:" on the report: up to 36 characters in first line and up to
60 characters in second line;
• additional explanatory information on the study (up to 60 lines with up to 60 characters
per line) provided by author(s).

187
 Figure 9.3. Details of cover page of report.

When clicking the Cost Data for FIXSYS Plants button in REPROBAT Input Data screen,
the user is asked first to answer the following confirmation message:

“Do you want to provide Construction Cost data for Committed FIXSYS plants?”

If the answer is Yes, the FIXSYS Plants Cost Data screen (Fig. 9.4) is displayed. In this
screen the user can enter/modify the domestic and foreign portions of pure construction cost
and IDC for committed FIXSYS plants that are to be considered in the cash flow tables of
capital costs of the REPROBAT report. It should be mentioned that this information was not
provided for the decided FIXSYS plants in any other WASP-IV module and it is necessary to
REPROBAT module if a comprehensive picture of cash flows of construction + IDC costs for
both decided FIXSYS plants and new plants included in the optimal/best solution (for which
the construction and IDC costs were described in DYNPRO) is to be provided.

After selecting a FIXSYS plant/project from the drop-down list from the top of the screen, the
user can enter/modify the following input information on the selected plant/project:

• first year of service (must be consistent with FIXSYS relevant information);

• construction period, including fraction of years (e.g. if the plant takes 52 months to be
built, the annual distribution data must cover 5 years);

• total domestic component of the "pure" construction cost (without IDC) and its annual
distribution (%) over the construction period;

• similar information for the foreign component of the "pure" construction costs;

• total domestic component of interest during construction and its annual distribution
(%) over the construction period;

• similar information for the foreign component of the interest during construction.

188
 Figure 9.4. Cost data for FIXSYS plants.

When clicking the Annual Dist. of Costs of VARSYS Plants button in REPROBAT Input
Data screen (Fig. 9.2), the user is asked to answer first the following confirmation message:

“Do you want to use Annual Distribution of Construction Cost of VARSYS plants other
than S-Curve built-in the program?”

If the answer is Yes, the VARSYS Plants Cost Data screen (Fig. 9.5) is displayed. After
selecting a VARSYS plant/project from the drop-down list from the top of the screen, the user
can enter/modify the following input information on the selected plant/project:

• annual distribution (%) of domestic component of "pure" construction cost (without

IDC) of hydro/PS project (only depreciable part for thermal plants);

• similar information for the foreign component of "pure" construction cost (without
IDC) of hydro/PS project (only depreciable part for thermal plants).

The interest during construction (IDC) is calculated and distributed internally by the program
over the construction period.

Figure 9.5. Cost data for VARSYS plants.

189
Non-depreciable capital cost of thermal plants, due to their nature (fuel inventory, initial stock
of spare parts etc.), is distributed internally by the program according to the S-Curve over 1.5
years (the last 18 months before commissioning of the plant).

Table 9.1 lists the above-mentioned types of data used by the REPROBAT module of WASP-
IV. This table is meant also to help the user to decode, if necessary, the content of
[Link] file created by the Windows interface using the data entered in various
screens as described earlier.

190
Table 9.1. (page 1) Input data for REPROBAT module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment
type1 name
Title of study3 X IDENT A60
General data and printout options (REPROBAT Input Data screen)
Initial year of study. IYSTUD I5 Same as in Common Case Data screen.
Last year of study. LYSTUD I5 Same as in Common Case Data screen.
First year of planning IYPLAN I5 The planning period (for which cash flow details are shown)
period. A must be embedded in the study period or be equal to it (default
value);
If IYPLAN = 0 or blank, the planning period is made
automatically equal to the study period.
Last year of planning LYPLAN I5
period.
Index number from 1 to 1 INDEX I4 1 means that input data have been completed and that the
8 telling the computer program can start execution;
what to do next. 2 through 8 indicate that one or more records follow of type
equal to the INDEX number.

Printout options. 2 IOPLST 8I4 To have printout of respective results in [Link] file,
click in the corresponding field of the screen to activate the
option; to deactivate, click again. The eight options are, in
sequence:
(1) Load system description (LOADSY);
(2) Fixed system description (FIXSYS);
(3) Variable system description (VARSYS);
(4) Constraints in configuration generator module
(CONGEN);
(5)4 Optimum solution details5 (DYNPRO);
(6) Economic parameters and additional constraints
(DYNPRO);
(7) Expected cost of operation (MERSIM);
(8)4 Cash flow details6 (of construction and IDC costs).
In [Link] file the activated options show the
sequence number (1,2,…,8) and the deactivated options show
“0”.
Three sub-options to 3 IOPCON 3I4 To have printout of respective outputs in [Link] file,
IOPLST option #8 – click in the corresponding field of the screen to activate the
Cash flow details6 (see option; to deactivate click again. The three (cumulative) options
type-2 record above). are:
− Yearly cash flows (calculation and detailed output of
cash flows of domestic and foreign construction costs by year
and by plant);
− IDC details (calculation and similar output for IDC);
− Capital cost + IDC (similar output for construction +
IDC costs).
In [Link] file the activated options show “1” and the
deactivated options show “0”.
Three sub-options to IOPSIM I4 To select an option, click in the corresponding field of the
option #5 - Optimum screen. The three options are:
solution details5 (see − No report (“0” in [Link] file);
type-2 record above) for − Only weighted values (“1” in [Link] file);
reports on fuel stock, − Maximum details (“2” in [Link] file).
electricity generation Can only be active after resimulation (reset by program).
and fuel consumption of 4
7
thermal plants .
Three sub-options to IOPPOL I4 To select an option, click in the corresponding field of the
option #5 - Optimum screen. The three options are:
solution details5 (see − No report (“0” in [Link] file);
type-2 record above) for − Only weighted values (“1” in [Link] file);
reports on group- − Maximum details (“2” in [Link] file).
limitation7. Can only be active after resimulation (reset by program).

191
Table 9.1. (page 2) Input data for REPROBAT module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment
type1 name

Details of cover page of report (Cover Page Details screen)

An "N" indicating the type of NAM A1 One record type-5b must be used as well.
record used to specify the date
of report and author(s) of the
WASP study on the cover page
of the report.

Date of the report. NDAT A20 If left blanks, displayed automatically by

the program; Can be modified by the
5a (cols 5-24) user.

Author(s) of the study (line 1). NAMA A36 Author(s) of the study or any
other text of up to 36 characters to
(cols 25-60) be written after the header
"STUDY CARRIED OUT BY:"
on the report;

Default value: blanks.

An "N". NAM A1 See record type-5a.

Author(s) of the study (line 2). 5b COUNTR A60 Up to 60 characters to be written

on the report in the following
(cols 5-64)
line;
Default value: blanks.

An "L" indicating the type of LEG A1

record.

Additional explanatory COUNTR A60 Up to 60 type-6 records with up

information by author(s). 6 to 60 characters per record may
(cols 5-64)
be used to provide additional
explanatory information on the
study;
Default value: blanks.

192
Table 9.1. (page 3) Input data for REPROBAT module of WASP-IV
Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment
type1 name
Cost data for FIXSYS plants (FIXSYS Plants Cost Data screen)
Name of thermal plant, hydro or P-S NAMAD A4 Maximum = 20.
project of the FIXSYS plant to be
considered in the cash flow tables of
capital costs of the REPROBAT
report.

Fuel type of plant. NTYP I2 Displayed automatically by the

program for the selected
7a (cols 6-7) plant/project;

Thermal: 0-9, hydro: 10,11 or P-S:

99.

First year of service of the plant. IY I4

(cols 12-15)

Construction period. NY I4 Including fraction of years (i.e. if

the plant takes 52 months to be
(cols 17-20) built, the construction period is 5
years);

Maximum construction period =

10 years.

Domestic total pure construction cost TCTRL F10

(million $).
7b
Annual distribution of X1 10F6 As many entries as years of
domestic pure construction construction – NY.
cost (%).

Foreign total pure construction cost TCTRF F10

(million $).
7c
Annual distribution of foreign pure X2 10F6 As many entries as years of
construction cost (%). construction – NY.

Domestic total interest during TXIDL F10

construction (million $).
7d
Annual distribution of domestic X5 10F6 As many entries as years of
interest during construction (%). construction – NY.

Foreign total interest during TXIDF F10

construction (million $).
7e
Annual distribution of foreign X6 10F6 As many entries as years of
interest during construction construction – NY.
(%).

193
Table 9.1. (page 4) Input data for REPROBAT module of WASP-IV

Input data Record Fortran Format2 Comment

type1 name
Annual distribution of costs of VARSYS plants (VARSYS Plants Cost Data screen)
Name of VARSYS plant (thermal, NAMP A4
hydro or P-S) for which a (cols 1-4)
distribution of depreciable part of
pure construction cost (without
IDC) versus time (different from
the standard “S” curve used as
default) is provided.
Name of VARSYS hydro or P-S 8a NAMH A4 Blanks for thermal plants.
project for which a distribution of (cols 6-9)
pure construction cost (without
IDC) versus time (different from
the standard “S” curve used as
default) is provided.
Annual distribution (%) of PERCC 10F6 As many entries as years of
domestic part of pure construction L (cols 11-…) construction of the plant/project
cost (only depreciable part for entered in DYNPRO.
thermal plants)8 Maximum construction time = 10
years.
Annual distribution (%) of foreign 8b PERCCF 10F6 As many entries as years of
part of pure construction cost (only (cols 11-…) construction of the plant/project
depreciable part for thermal entered in DYNPRO.
plants)8. Maximum construction time = 10
years.
Notes to Table 9.1
1 Relevant only for decoding the content of [Link] file but not for filling in input data
screens.

2 See Section 2.6 for Format description.

3 Not entered by the user in the current screen. Handled by the interface.

4 Sub-options are also allowed (see record type-3 and-4).

5 If the user is running Fixed Expansion plans and a REPROBAT of the solution reported by DYNPRO
is required, it is necessary to run REMERSIM first.

6 If Cost data for FIXSYS plants (record type-7) are entered in REPROBAT then option IOPLST #8
and its sub-options IOPCON must be greater than 0.

7 For the related output tables to be correct, the preceding run of REMERSIM must be executed using
printout option IOPT ≥ 1 for all years of study.

8 Cost distribution must be specified for both domestic and foreign costs even only one of them is
applicable for a particular plant; otherwise, the error R16 (Table 13.13) will occur at the execution of
REPROBAT.

194
9.3. Sample problem

9.3.1. Input data

After having found the optimum solution (in DYNPRO Run-3) of the sample problem and
having executed the resimulation run described in Section 7.3.5, the REPROBAT module of
WASP-IV was run in order to obtain a complete report on this optimum solution. Figure 9.6
shows the content of [Link] file created by the user interface using the input data
for this run.

As for the previous WASP-IV modules, the first data line in Fig. 9.6 contents the title of the
study, for which the same remarks made in Section 3.3.1 for CONGEN are also valid for
REPROBAT.

Line number 2 is a type-A record specifying in the first two fields, the initial and last year of
the study (1998 and 2017), which should be the same values used in Common Case Data
screen. The next two fields of this record are used to specify the first and last year of the
planning period (for which the cash flow details are shown), which must be embedded within
the study period. This permits specifying a planning period covering only a few important
years, fewer than the total number of years of the study period. If the fields for planning
period are left blank in the REPROBAT Input Data screen the program sets it equal to the
study period.

Records type-1 with INDEX=1 to 8 are used to control the input data flow depending on the
INDEX number. A type-1 INDEX=1 record tells the computer that all input data have been
completed and that execution of REPROBAT can begin. A type-1 INDEX=2 (3 or 4)
indicates that a record type-2 (-3 or -4) must be read next. Similarly, a type-1 INDEX=5 tells
the computer that data records type-5a and -5b follow, and a type-1 INDEX=6 that records
type-6 (up to 60) are to be read next. Finally groups of one type-1 INDEX=7 (or 8) record and
the respective type -7a to –7e (or -8a to –8b) records are used following the sequence
described in Table 9.1.

The next input line is a type-1 INDEX=2 record followed by a type-2 record. The type-2
record reflects the choice of the user on the eight output options (IOPLST) controlling the
logic of execution and the output, as explaied in Section 9.2. In the case of the sample
problem all options have been activated in REPROBAT Input Data screen. Therefore, they
have values greater than zero in [Link] file so that the full REPROBAT report is
requested.

The previous data lines are followed by a type-1 INDEX=3 and a type-3 record showing the
three sub-option values (IOPCON) for printing option IOPLST #8 of the type-2 record
controlling the output of cash flows. The logic and output of the program for these three sub-
options were explained also in Section 9.2. Again, all three sub-options have been activated in
REPROBAT Input Data screen (“1” in [Link] file), asking for complete report.

The next type-1 INDEX=4 and type-4 records show the two sub-option (IOPSIM and
IOPPOL) values for printing option IOPLST #5. As mentioned in Section 9.2, they are used
to specify the degree of details in reporting the information on the simulation of system
operation for the optimal solution. These sub-options can only be used if a resimulation
(REMERSIM) of the best solution found by DYNPRO (or eventually the optimal solution)
has been carried out prior to the REPROBAT run. The value “2” of these sub-options ask for
maximum details output for DEMOCASE.

195
The next type of input is a type-1 INDEX=5 record and is followed by the two type-5 (5a and
5b) records. The first record (type-5a) includes the information on the date and author(s) of
the study entered by the user in the fields Date of the report and Study carried out by: of
the Cover page details screen. The second record (type-5b) contents the text specified by the
user in the field Study carried out by (contd): of the same screen. This information is used
by REPROBAT to produce the cover page of the report. The type-5a and -5b data records are
always included by the user interface in [Link] file, even if the fields in any of
these two records are to be left blank, and are all identified by one "N" in column 1 of the
record.

The next input line is a type-1 INDEX=6 record and is followed by 33 type-6 records
(identified by one "L" in column 1 of the record) including additional explanatory information
on the study supplied by the user. Up to 60 lines of text are available in the input screen (as
demonstrated by dummy records). In this case, they are used to summarise the main features
of the power system being analysed. All this additional information is printed in a separate
page of the report (see Figure 9.7) following the table of contents.

Next type of data in Fig. 9.6 corresponds to a group of one type-1 INDEX=7 record followed
by several type-7 records to indicate that hydro project FHY6 must be considered in the cash
flow tables of capital costs of the REPROBAT report.

The first (type-7a) record of the group specifies the project code name (FHY6) in the first
field and plant type code (11, i.e. HYD2) in the second field. The last two fields in this record
identify the year of start of operation (2000) and the construction period (5 years) of this
project. [Note: the first year of service must be consistent with the year of operation entered
for the same project in FIXSYS module]. The next line is one type-7b record to specify the
total domestic pure construction cost of this project and the percent annual distribution of
theis cost over the construction period. This is followed by a corresponding type-7c record
specifying similar information but concerning the foreign component of pure construction
cost. The last two lines are a type-7d and a type-7e records giving similar information to the
two last previous ones but for the interest during construction cost. [Note: all annual
distribution of costs must add up to 100%].

Next is a group of one type-1 INDEX=8 record and type-8 records to specify expansion
candidate plants or projects for which the distribution of investment expenditures against time
are different to the standard "S" curve function used as default by the program. This group of
records, in this example, corresponds to a thermal expansion candidate and is identified in the
type-8a record as NUCL (first field of the record). The second field of the record is left blank
since this applies only to hydro projects. (In the [Link] file the third field is
always (“0”) which means that the yearly distribution of non-depreciable capital cost will be
done automatically by the program over the 1.5 year period before commissioning of the
plant). The last seven fields in the record are used to give the annual percentage distribution of
domestic pure construction cost of this plant. The annual distribution of foreign pure
construction cost is given in the subsequent type-8b record. Note that in each case, the annual
distribution of costs must add up to 100%. In addition, it is not necessary to specify the total
costs of the plant since this information is already available to the program (read from
DYNPRO).

The last data record is a type-1 INDEX=1 record indicating that all input data have been
completed and that the module should be executed.

196
DEMOCASE: CASE STUDY FOR THE WASP-IV USER’S MANUAL .
1998 2017
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3
1 1 1
4
2 2
5
N SEPTEMBER 2004 PESS/NE/IAEA
N STUDY FOR THE WASP-IV USER’S MANUAL
6
L ************************************************************
L * NEW VERSION OF WASP-IV *
L * IAEA *
L * *
L * SEPTEMBER 2004 *
L ************************************************************
L
L STUDY PERIOD: 1998 - 2017
L PLANNING PERIOD: 1998 - 2017
L
L
L THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WASP-IV CASE STUDY FOR
L A HYPOTHETICAL POWER SYSTEM. THE SYSTEM CONSISTS
L OF SIX THERMAL POWER PLANTS AND FIVE HYDRO PROJECTS.
L ONE UNIT OF COAL BASED PLANT AND TWO UNITS OF
L COMBINED CYCLE PLANT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WHILE
L ONE PROJECT OF HYDRO TYPE-2 IS ALSO COMMITTED.
L SOME OF THE UNIT OF THERMAL PLANTS AND HYDRO PROJECTS
L ARE ASSUMED TO RETIRE DURING THE STUDY PERIOD (AS
L DETAILED IN THE REPORT).
L
L FIVE THERMAL PLANTS AND FOUR HYDRO PROJECTS ARE
L CONSIDERED AS CANDIDATES FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF
L THE SYSTEM.
L
L FOUR MULTIPLE GROUP-LIMITATIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON
L THE SYSTEM; TWO OF SCH LIMITATIONS ARE FUEL LIMITS,
L THE OTHER TWO ARE ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITS.
L
L
L ALL THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION USED IN
L THIS CASE IS HYPOTHETICAL AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED
L AS REFERENCE DATA.
L
L
L 36
L 37
L 38
L 39
L 40
L 41
L 42
L 43
L 44
L 45
L 46
L 47
L 48
L 49
L 50
L 51
L 52
L 53
L 54
L 55
L 56
L 57
L 58
L 59
L 60
7
FHY6 11 0 2000 5
126. 10. 25. 30. 25. 10.
126. 5. 15. 25. 35. 20.
42.7 3. 10.6 20.5 30. 35.9
34.8 1.8 7.4 17.2 31.6 42.
8
NUCL 0 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 15. 10.
5. 5. 10. 15. 30. 25. 10.
1

Figure 9.6. Input data for REPROBAT run of the optimal solution for the sample problem
(DEMOCASE).

197
9.3.2. Printout of REPROBAT of the optimal solution

When clicking View REPROBAT Output button in the main screen REPROBAT, the
[Link] file is displayed with WordPad editor or with the alternative editor chosen
by the user at the installation of WASP-IV program. Figure 9.7 illustrates the REPROBAT
printout for the sample problem obtained from executing this module using the data records
shown in Fig. 9.6. Except for the cover page of the report, all pages are automatically
numbered by REPROBAT15 as can be seen in Fig. 9.7 (In the following description of this
figure, page numbers of the REPROBAT report will be referred). The format of some tables
of REPROBAT output can be different from one case study to another depending on the
structure of the electricity generation system under study: with/without hydro/PS power
plants.

Page 1 is the Cover Page showing the title of study, the study and planning periods (entered
in REPROBAT Input Data screen), and the date and author(s) of the study (entered in Cover
Page Details screen). This page bears a message telling the user that cash flows on
construction cost are reported only for plants added during the defined planning period. Thus
if the user requires cash flows over the entire study period, the planning period to be specified
must be equal to the study period (alternatively the corresponding fields are left blank and the
planning period is set to default).

Page 2 is the table of contents, which is actually printed last by REPROBAT since the
numbering of pages depends on the size of the problem and which REPROBAT output
options are selected for the run.

Page 3 contains the additional explanatory information supplied by the user in the same Cover
Page Details screen.

Page 4 identifies the code numbers and code names associated with the twelve types of
generating plant ("fuel" types) used in the study. Although the WASP-IV modules 5
(MERSIM) and 6 (DYNPRO) automatically assign the code number of hydro plant type A
(HYD1 in this case) to 10 and of hydro plant type B (HYD2 in this case) to 11, these numbers
are not shown on this page since all information included here is simply retrieved by
REPROBAT from the [Link] file (see Section 4.3 for description of the fuel types
used for DEMOCASE). Penalty factors for the loss-of-load probability and the unserved
energy, to be used when determining the optimal mix of strategies for group-limitations with
the modules CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO are also shown on this page.

Page 5 gives a summary of the annual loads, adding to the information read from the
[Link] file, the growth rates for the annual peak, for minimum loads and for the
annual energy demand.

Pages 6 to 11 give a summary description of the fixed system for all years of the study period.
Page 6 corresponds to the description of thermal plants in the original fixed system, i.e. those
thermal plants in FIXSYS for the first year of study (1998). This information is the same as
shown on the table of thermal plants of the FIXSYS printout for the respective year (see page

1
The report presented in Fig. 9.7 has been compressed as much as possible by deleting some empty lines with the view of
reducing the size of this document. For the same reason, whenever possible, the pages of the figure contain more than one
printout page.

198
4 of Fig. 4.9), except for the last columns of the table, which are not reproduced in the
REPROBAT printout.

Page 7 gives emission data (heat values and emission rates) for the thermal plants in FIXSYS,
and page 8 summarises the characteristics of the composite hydroelectric plant type A
(HYD1) in FIXSYS, while page 9 those of the FIXSYS composite hydro plant type B
(HYD2). These characteristics are given (for each period and hydro-condition) each time a
change (addition or retirement) is made to the respective hydro plant. In the case of the HYD1
hydro plant, for example, the characteristics are given for years 1998, 2002 and 2007, i.e. for
years when a change was made to this plant type in FIXSYS. It should be noted that the
number of projects of this plant in years 2002 and 2007 is increased by one in spite of the fact
that an actual retirement was made from this plant in each of these years (see discussion of the
FIXSYS printout for sample problem in Section 4.3.2). Similarly, the characteristics of the
composite hydro plant type B (HYD2) are given for 1998 and 2000. If pumped-storage
projects are also present in FIXSYS, similar information will be reported for them as well.

Page 10 of the printout shows the thermal additions and retirements of the original fixed
system. In this case one unit of FLG1 is retired (“-1”) in years 2003 and 2014, respectively.
Similar information is reported for all retirements. As for retirements, a positive number will
be reported indicating additions to the respective plant. For example, one unit of FCOA is
added (“+1”) in 1999. Page 11 provides a summary of installed capacities of the fixed system
(thermal + hydro) for each year of the study.

Pages 12 to 15 give a description of the expansion candidates provided in the variable system:
page 12 for thermal candidates (same information as in page 3 of Fig. 5.8) and page 13 for
heat values and emission factors for candidate thermal plants, while pages 14 and 15 for the
two composite hydro plant types. Here again only the characteristics of the respective
composite hydro plant type (per period and hydro-condition) are given combining up to the
first, the second, ... up to the last VARSYS hydro project of each type. Thus, page 14 gives
the characteristics of the composite hydro plant HYD1 in VARSYS up to 1 project, and up to
2 projects, and page 15 those of the HYD2 hydro plant up to 1 and 2 projects, composed. In
each case the year reported shows the year of availability of the last project added. Again, if
pumped-storage projects are included as candidates, similar information for them will be
reported.

Page 16 reports definition of real emissions and group-limitations for both fixed and variable
systems. It includes, for real emissions, the type, number of plants and the names of plants
involved. It may be noted that if all thermal plants in fixed or variable system are involved in
real emissions, “COMPLETE SYSTEM” is reported instead of giving names of all plants, and
if none of the plants is involved, “NO ACTIVE PLANTS” is written. It also applies to
definition of group-limitations. This page also reports the initial group-limitations imposed on
the system.

Page 17 gives the constraints on configurations generated that were imposed on the solution
in module 4 (CONGEN Run-3) for each year of study, showing also how many
configurations were generated for each year and the total for all years (566 in this case).

Page 18 summarizes the optimum solution found by module 6 (DYNPRO) for this expansion
problem. In this table, the configuration and the LOLP, along with the capacity additions
(from VARSYS) are given for each year of the study. Examining this optimal solution, it can
be seen that four 600 MW combined cycle units (V-CC), one 280 MW lignite-1 (VLG1), six

199
280 MW lignite-2 (VLG2), nine 580-MW coal-fired units (VCOA) and four 600 MW nuclear
units (NUCL) were added in the study period. Two projects each of the two hydro types were
also chosen by DYNPRO in the optimal solution. The annual average LOLP is shown to vary
from 1.682% (in year 1998), down to 0.177% (in 2017). For this optimal solution, page 19
gives a summary of total installed capacities for each year of the study and for each thermal
fuel type, combining all plants in FIXSYS plus the plants from VARSYS which are added by
the optimal solution.

Page 20 reports a similar information but focusing on a breakdown of the capacity by hydro
plant type, while the thermal capacity is presented as total. This table also shows the system
reserve capacity (% of installed capacity exceeding the annual peak demand) and the annual
average LOLP. The last three columns correspond to the amount of energy-not-served
calculated by MERSIM for each hydro-condition defined (3 in this case).

Pages 21 and 22 report the fuel stock of thermal plants by fule type (kton) for all FIXSYS plus
optimum solution plants for each year of study. Two pages are needed to cover the ten
thermal fuel types allowed by WASP-IV (even if less fuel types are used in the study). Note
that these tables assume that fuel stocks are accumulated one year prior to start of operation of
the associated thermal power plants and, therefore, the table begins one year before the study
period. Also, all years appear in this table even if the corresponding information is zero. Thus,
entries in this table are given for all years from 1997 through 2016. Non-zero entries
correspond to the year before the associated plant is added to the system (either in FIXSYS or
from the candidate plants).

Pages 23 to 25 summarise the generation by plant type (GWh) for all FIXSYS plus optimum
solution plants for each year of study and for each hydro-condition specified, while page 26
lists the expected generation values (annual averages calculated from the values for each
hydro-condition weighted by the hydro-condition probability). (Note: the output tables
regarding Generation by plant type illustrated here will show the appropriate entries only if
the preceding REMERSIM run was executed specifying printout option IOPT=1
(Intermediate) or =2 (Maximum) for all years of study. If IOPT in REMERSIM is set to zero
(Minimum) for some years, these years will show zero entries in the tables. This is also
applicable to the output tables on fuel consumption by type described below).

The annual fuel consumption of thermal plants by fuel type (kton) of the fixed system plus
optimal solution are reported in the subsequent pages, including in pages 27-28 those for
hydro-condition 1, in pages 29-30 for hydro-condition 2 and in pages 31-32 for hydro-
condition 3. Pages 33-34 report the annual expected values (weighted by the hydro-condition
probabilities).

Pages 35-37 report polluant #1 (SO2 in this case) by fuel type for the fixed system plus
optimal solution for each hydro-condition, while page 38 gives expected values of similar
information weighted by probabilities of hydro-conditions. Likewise, pages 39-42 give
similar information for the second pollutant (NOx in this case). Page 43 reports the actual
contribution and the annual limits for the group-limitations for each year of the study for the
fixed system plus optimal solution.

Pages 44-46 report the input data given in the respective DYNPRO run. Page 44 shows the
summary of capital cost data of the [Link] (DYNPRO) file (see page 1 of Fig.
8.9). The information reported by REPROBAT on this page reflects the capital costs entered
in the screens DynPro_Thermal Plants and DYNPRO Hydro/PS Plants Data and doesn’t
include the effect of the eventual escalation of capital costs during the study period. Pages 45-

200
46 show the additional input data (economic parameters and constraints) for the respective
DYNPRO run (DYNPRO Run-3): discount rates for domestic and foreign costs, escalation
ratios for capital costs, for operating costs (fuel + O&M) and for fuel cost only, coefficients of
energy-not-served cost, penalty factor for foreign expenditure, critical value of LOLP and
depreciation option. Here the values of the respective variables of DYNPRO are given for the
first year of the study and for any change introduced later. In each case the headings indicate
between parenthesis the type of data record INDEX used in the DYNPRO runs. When a zero
appears between the parenthesis it means that the values which follow correspond to default
values in the program, i.e. that the respective type record was not used in DYNPRO. Thus,
although no escalation ratios on capital costs were specified in DYNPRO Run-3, the default
values for these escalation ratios applied by DYNPRO are shown in page 45 of the printout.
Similarly, escalation ratios for operating costs and fuel costs, and penalty factor on foreign
expenditures in DYNPRO Run-3 were all set to the respective default values.

For the optimal solution, pages 47 to 50 give the expected operating cost summary, by year
and by fuel (plant) type, for domestic (page 47) and foreign (page 48) fuel costs; for operation
and maintenance (O&M) and energy-not-served (ENS) costs (page 49), these costs considered
as domestic expenditures; and for total operating costs (page 50). All these pages bear a
heading EXPECTED COST OF OPERATION, meaning that all values shown have been
weighted by the hydro-condition probabilities and that they are expressed in monetary units
(million $) of the respective year (i.e. they are not present-worth values), taking into account
all escalation ratios specified in DYNPRO. In the sample problem, since no escalation on
operating costs has been used in DYNPRO, the results on page 50 are the same as for the
resimulation run (REMERSIM) of the optimum solution shown in Fig. 7.19 (page 1),
excluding the costs of the energy-not-served (last column of the table on page 50) which were
calculated in the respective DYNPRO run.

Pages 51-68 report the cash flows of construction and IDC costs of the VARSYS plants added
by the optimal solution during the planning period. Pages 51 to 53 refer to the domestic
component of construction cost and pages 54 to 56 to the foreign component. The information
on construction costs of a plant starts earlier than the year of commercial operation by the
length of the construction period of the plant. Thus, project 1 (VHY1) of hydro type-B
(HYD2), for example, was added in year 2002 and the respective cost information starts in
1997 since the construction period of this project is 5 years (as shown on page 44). It can be
seen in pages 51 to 53 that some years are repeated in the tables due to the year in which
plants were actually added by the optimal solution and their respective construction period.
As mentioned earlier all investment cost information is reported for plants added during the
planning period. Hence, these tables should normally show cash flows for years 1998-2017.
As for the sample problem there are no unit/project additions in years 1998-2000, the actual
cash flows are shown for years 2001-2017.

Pages 57-62 give the domestic and foreign components of the expenditures for interest during
construction (IDC) associated with the capital investment costs above-mentioned, and pages
63-68 the respective sums of construction plus IDC costs for each VARSYS plant added
during the planning period. As indicated in the cover page of the printout, all values in these
tables are given in million dollars (106 $) and since they report cash flows, all values are given
in monetary units of the corresponding year (i.e. they are not discounted). On the other hand,
these values do take into account escalation using the escalation ratios on these costs that have
been specified in the DYNPRO run (not used in this case).

201
Page 69 provides a capital cash flow summary of all capital investment costs, by year and
type of expenditure, for all candidates added by the optimal solution. This includes in
sequence: non-depreciable capital cost, depreciable capital cost, and interest during
construction, each cost item broken down into domestic, foreign and total. A last column
summarises the grand totals per year.

The rest of the printout is produced only when the REPROBAT input data provides
information for some of the committed (FIXSYS) plants. In the sample problem, this option
was used for FHY6 hydro project added at the fixed system in 2000 (see Fig. 9.6) so that page
70 summarises the capital cash flow summary of this project for years 1995-1999
(construction time = 5 years). Note that the plants/projects are not identified in the table on
page 70. Finally, page 71 summarises the global capital cash flow summary corresponding to
the addition of the respective entries in pages 69 (candidates) and 70 (decided system).

During program execution, REPROBAT verifies the validity of some input data and the
compatibility of the information of the files called upon by the program, and in case of an
"error" the execution of the program will be stopped and a message will be reported in the
printout. Section 13.9 describes the error and warning messages for the REPROBAT module.

202
 SUMMARY REPORT
ON A GENERATION EXPANSION PLAN FOR

DEMOCASE: CASE STUDY FOR THE WASP-IV USER’S MANUAL

PROCESSED BY THE WASP-IV COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE

OF THE IAEA

STUDY PERIOD

1998 - 2017

PLANNING PERIOD

1998 - 2017

CONSTRUCTION COSTS
IN MILLION $
ARE REPORTED ONLY FOR
PLANTS COMMISSIONED
DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD.
ALL OTHER INFORMATION IS GIVEN
FOR THE WHOLE STUDY PERIOD.

DATE OF REPORT : September 2004

STUDY CARRIED OUT BY : PESS / NE / IAEA
STUDY FOR THE WASP-IV USER’S MANUAL

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE(Cont).

203
 PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY USER 3

TYPES OF ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS USED 4

1 ANNUAL LOAD DESCRIPTION 5

2 FIXED SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION OF THERMAL PLANTS 6
DESCRIPTION OF COMPOSITE HYDRO PLANTS 8
THERMAL ADDITIONS AND RETIREMENTS 10
SUMMARY OF INSTALLED CAPACITIES 11

3 VARIABLE SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION OF THERMAL PLANT CANDIDATES 12
DESCRIPTION OF COMP. HYDRO PLANT CAND. 14

4 REAL EMISSION AND GROUP LIMITATION 16

5 CONSTRAINTS ON CONFIGURATIONS GENERATED 17

6 OPTIMUM SOLUTION
ANNUAL ADDITIONS OF CANDIDATES 18
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM CAP.,ENERGIES & FUEL CONS. 19
SUMMARY OF POLLUTING MATERIAL BY FUEL TYPE 35
7 ECONOMIC PARAMETERS AND CONSTRAINTS
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES 44
INITIAL PARAMETERS AND CONSTRAINTS 45

8 EXPECTED COST OF OPERATION

FUEL COST DOMESTIC 47
FUEL COST FOREIGN 48
O&M AND ENS COST DOMESTIC 49
TOTAL COST DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN 50

9 CASH FLOW OF CONSTRUCTION AND FUEL INVESTMENT COST

CONSTRUCTION COST
- DOMESTIC 51
- FOREIGN 54

INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION (IDC)

- DOMESTIC 57
- FOREIGN 60

CONSTRUCTION COST AND IDC

- DOMESTIC 63
- FOREIGN 66

CAPITAL CASH FLOW SUMMARY

- CANDIDATES 69
- DECIDED SYSTEM 70
- DECIDED SYSTEM AND CANDIDATES 71

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

204
 PAGE 3

INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY USER :

**********************************************
* NEW VERSION OF WASP IV *
* IAEA *
* *
* SEPTEMBER 2004 *
**********************************************

STUDY PERIOD 1998 - 2017

PLANNING PERIOD 1998 - 2017

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WASP-IV CASE STUDY FOR

A HYPOTHETICAL POWER SYSTEM. THE SYSTEM CONSISTS
OF SIX THERMAL POWER PLANTS AND FIVE HYDRO PROJECTS.
ONE UNIT OF COAL BASED PLANT AND TWO UNITS OF
COMBINED CYCLE PLANT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WHILE
ONE PROJECT OF HYDRO TYPE-2 IS ALSO COMMITTED.
SOME OF THE UNIT OF THERMAL PLANTS AND HYDRO PROJECTS
ARE ASSUMED TO RETIRE DURING THE STUDY PERIOD (AS
DETAILED IN THE REPORT).

FIVE THERMAL PLANTS AND FOUR HYDRO PROJECTS ARE

CONSIDERED AS CANDIDATES FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF
THE SYSTEM.

FOUR MULTIPLE GROUP LIMITATIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON

THE SYSTEM; TWO OF SUCH LIMITATIONS ARE FUEL LIMITS
THE OTHER TWO ARE ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSION LIMITS.

ALL THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION USED IN

THIS CASE IS HYPOTHETICAL AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED
AS REFERENCE DATA.

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

205
 PAGE 4

THIS IS A LIST OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS

USED IN THE STUDY.
THE NUMERIC CODES ARE USED BY THE COMPUTER PROGRAMS

0 NUCL NUCLEAR PLANTS

1 LIG1 LIGNITE-1 PLANTS
2 LIG2 LIGNITE-2 PLANTS
3 COAL COAL PLANTS
4 FOIL OIL PLANTS
5 GTGO GAS TURBINES GAS-OIL
6 NGAS NATURAL GAS PLANTS
7 **** NOT APPLICABLE
8 **** NOT APPLICABLE
9 **** NOT APPLICABLE

SYSTEM WITHOUT PUMPED STORAGE PROJECTS:

HYD1 HYDRO PLANTS GROUP 1

HYD2 HYDRO PLANTS GROUP 2

GROUP LIMITATIONS FOR THE SYSTEM:

PENALTY FACTORS POLLUTING

LOLP ENS MATERIALS

0.00 1.00 SO2 NOx

PAGE 5

ANNUAL LOAD DESCRIPTION

PERIOD(S) PER YEAR : 4

YEAR PEAKLOAD [Link] [Link] [Link] ENERGY [Link] LOADFACTOR

MW % MW % GWH % %

1998 6000.0 - 2160.0 - 30353.4 - 57.75

1999 6333.0 5.6 2279.9 5.5 32038.0 5.5 57.75
2000 6725.6 6.2 2421.2 6.2 34024.4 6.2 57.75
2001 7109.0 5.7 2559.2 5.7 35963.8 5.7 57.75
2002 7496.5 5.4 2698.7 5.4 37923.8 5.4 57.75
2003 7897.5 5.3 2843.1 5.3 39952.7 5.3 57.75
2004 8304.2 5.1 2989.5 5.1 42010.3 5.1 57.75
2005 8702.8 4.8 3133.0 4.8 44026.7 4.8 57.75
2006 9120.6 4.8 3283.4 4.8 46211.6 5.0 57.84
2007 9558.4 4.8 3441.0 4.8 48429.8 4.8 57.84
2008 10017.2 4.8 3606.2 4.8 50754.6 4.8 57.84
2009 10488.0 4.7 3775.7 4.7 53140.1 4.7 57.84
2010 10980.9 4.7 3953.1 4.7 55637.5 4.7 57.84
2011 11497.0 4.7 4138.9 4.7 58252.4 4.7 57.84
2012 12025.9 4.6 4329.3 4.6 60932.2 4.6 57.84
2013 12579.1 4.6 4528.5 4.6 63735.1 4.6 57.84
2014 13157.7 4.6 4736.8 4.6 66666.8 4.6 57.84
2015 13749.8 4.5 4949.9 4.5 69666.8 4.5 57.84
2016 14368.5 4.5 5172.7 4.5 72801.6 4.5 57.84
2017 15015.1 4.5 5405.4 4.5 76077.7 4.5 57.84

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

206
 PAGE 6

FIXED SYSTEM

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THERMAL PLANTS IN YEAR 1998

HEAT RATES FUEL COSTS FAST

NO. MIN. CAPA KCAL/KWH CENTS/ SPIN FOR DAYS MAIN O&M O&M
OF LOAD CITY BASE AVGE MILLION KCAL FUEL RES SCHL CLAS (FIX) (VAR)
NO. NAME SETS MW MW LOAD INCR DMSTC FORGN TYPE % % MAIN MW $/KWM $/MWH

3 FLG1 4 150. 270. 3300. 2850. 600.0 0.0 1 10 10.0 56 280. 4.06 4.90
4 FLG2 9 150. 276. 2900. 2550. 495.0 0.0 2 10 8.9 56 280. 1.91 2.00
5 FCOA 1 400. 580. 2800. 2300. 800.0 0.0 3 10 8.0 48 600. 2.92 5.00
6 FOIL 7 80. 145. 2450. 2150. 0.0 833.0 4 10 7.3 42 140. 4.57 1.60
7 F-GT 4 50. 50. 3300. 3300. 420.0 0.0 5 0 6.0 42 50. 8.35 1.60
8 F-CC 1 87. 174. 2048. 2048. 0.0 1266.0 6 0 15.0 28 180. 2.10 5.00

PAGE 7

FIXED SYSTEM

EMISSION MATERIAL DATA

RATIO OF MATERIAL/FUEL
NO. NAME HEAT VALUE SO2 NOx
kcal/kg % %

3 FLG1 1800.0 2.5 1.0

4 FLG2 1800.0 2.5 1.0
5 FCOA 6000.0 1.0 2.0
6 FOIL 10000.0 1.0 3.0
7 F-GT 10000.0 0.5 0.5
8 F-CC 11000.0 0.0 0.5
PAGE 8

FIXED SYSTEM

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF COMPOSITE HYDROELECTRIC PLANT TYPE HYD1

*** CAPACITY IN MW * ENERGY IN GWH ***
FIXED O&M COSTS : 0.550 $/KW-MONTH

P HYDROCONDITION 1 HYDROCONDITION 2 HYDROCONDITION 3

R P PROB.: 0.45 PROB.: 0.30 PROB.: 0.25
O E CAPACITY ENERGY CAPACITY ENERGY CAPACITY ENERGY
YEAR J R BASE PEAK BASE PEAK BASE PEAK

1998 3 1 210. 965. 1335. 215. 780. 1065. 201. 1049. 1620.
2 210. 975. 1385. 215. 800. 1115. 201. 1099. 1670.
3 210. 1005. 1485. 215. 820. 1215. 201. 1149. 1770.
4 210. 1035. 1535. 215. 860. 1315. 201. 1399. 1870.
[Link]. 1650.
TOTAL ENERGY 5740. 4710. 6930.

2002 4 1 0. 325. 135. 0. 295. 115. 0. 350. 170.

2 0. 325. 135. 0. 295. 115. 0. 350. 170.
3 0. 325. 135. 0. 295. 115. 0. 350. 170.
4 0. 325. 135. 0. 295. 115. 0. 350. 170.
[Link]. 400.
TOTAL ENERGY 540. 460. 680.

2007 5 1 0. 240. 84. 0. 220. 73. 0. 260. 110.

2 0. 240. 84. 0. 220. 73. 0. 260. 110.
3 0. 240. 84. 0. 220. 73. 0. 260. 110.
4 0. 240. 84. 0. 220. 73. 0. 260. 110.
[Link]. 300.
TOTAL ENERGY 336. 293. 440.

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

207
 PAGE 9

FIXED SYSTEM

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF COMPOSITE HYDROELECTRIC PLANT TYPE HYD2

*** CAPACITY IN MW * ENERGY IN GWH ***
FIXED O&M COSTS : 0.550 $/KW-MONTH

P HYDROCONDITION 1 HYDROCONDITION 2 HYDROCONDITION 3

R P PROB.: 0.45 PROB.: 0.30 PROB.: 0.25
O E CAPACITY ENERGY CAPACITY ENERGY CAPACITY ENERGY
YEAR J R BASE PEAK BASE PEAK BASE PEAK

1998 2 1 0. 187. 102. 0. 160. 70. 0. 206. 134.

2 0. 187. 102. 0. 160. 70. 0. 206. 134.
3 0. 187. 102. 0. 160. 70. 0. 206. 134.
4 0. 187. 102. 0. 160. 70. 0. 206. 134.
[Link]. 206.
TOTAL ENERGY 408. 280. 536.

2000 3 1 0. 342. 186. 0. 300. 139. 0. 371. 238.

2 0. 342. 186. 0. 300. 139. 0. 371. 238.
3 0. 342. 186. 0. 300. 139. 0. 371. 238.
4 0. 342. 186. 0. 300. 139. 0. 371. 238.
[Link]. 386.
TOTAL ENERGY 743. 554. 951.

PAGE 10

FIXED SYSTEM

THERMAL ADDITIONS AND RETIREMENTS

NUMBER OF SETS ADDED AND RETIRED(-)

1998 TO 2017
YEAR: 19.. (200./20..)
NO. NAME 99 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

3 FLG1 . . . . -1 . . . . . . . . . . -1
4 FLG2 . . . . . . . -1 . . -1 . . . . -1
5 FCOA 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 FOIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . -1 -1 .
7 F-GT . . . . . . . . . . -1 . . . . .
8 F-CC . 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PAGE 11
FIXED SYSTEM
SUMMARY OF INSTALLED CAPACITIES
(NOMINAL CAPACITIES (MW))

HYDROELECTRIC THERMAL TOTAL

HYD1 HYD2 FUEL TYPE
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
YEAR PR. CAP PR. CAP NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** ****

1998 3 1650. 2 206. 0. 1080. 2484. 580. 1015. 200. 174. 0. 0. 0. 7389.
1999 3 1650. 2 206. 0. 1080. 2484. 1160. 1015. 200. 174. 0. 0. 0. 7969.
2000 3 1650. 3 386. 0. 1080. 2484. 1160. 1015. 200. 348. 0. 0. 0. 8323.
2001 3 1650. 3 386. 0. 1080. 2484. 1160. 1015. 200. 522. 0. 0. 0. 8497.
2002 4 400. 3 386. 0. 1080. 2484. 1160. 1015. 200. 522. 0. 0. 0. 7247.
2003 4 400. 3 386. 0. 810. 2484. 1160. 1015. 200. 522. 0. 0. 0. 6977.
2004 4 400. 3 386. 0. 810. 2484. 1160. 1015. 200. 522. 0. 0. 0. 6977.
2005 4 400. 3 386. 0. 810. 2484. 1160. 1015. 200. 522. 0. 0. 0. 6977.
2006 4 400. 3 386. 0. 810. 2208. 1160. 1015. 200. 522. 0. 0. 0. 6701.
2007 5 300. 3 386. 0. 810. 2208. 1160. 1015. 200. 522. 0. 0. 0. 6601.
2008 5 300. 3 386. 0. 810. 2208. 1160. 1015. 200. 522. 0. 0. 0. 6601.
2009 5 300. 3 386. 0. 810. 1932. 1160. 1015. 150. 522. 0. 0. 0. 6275.
2010 5 300. 3 386. 0. 810. 1932. 1160. 1015. 150. 522. 0. 0. 0. 6275.
2011 5 300. 3 386. 0. 810. 1932. 1160. 1015. 150. 522. 0. 0. 0. 6275.
2012 5 300. 3 386. 0. 810. 1932. 1160. 870. 150. 522. 0. 0. 0. 6130.
2013 5 300. 3 386. 0. 810. 1932. 1160. 725. 150. 522. 0. 0. 0. 5985.
2014 5 300. 3 386. 0. 540. 1656. 1160. 725. 150. 522. 0. 0. 0. 5439.
2015 5 300. 3 386. 0. 540. 1656. 1160. 725. 150. 522. 0. 0. 0. 5439.
2016 5 300. 3 386. 0. 540. 1656. 1160. 725. 150. 522. 0. 0. 0. 5439.
2017 5 300. 3 386. 0. 540. 1656. 1160. 725. 150. 522. 0. 0. 0. 5439.

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

208
 PAGE 12

VARIABLE SYSTEM
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THERMAL PLANTS
HEAT RATES FUEL COSTS FAST
NO. MIN. CAPA KCAL/KWH CENTS/ SPIN FOR DAYS MAIN O&M O&M
OF LOAD CITY BASE AVGE MILLION KCAL FUEL RES SCHL CLAS (FIX) (VAR)
NO. NAME SETS MW MW LOAD INCR DMSTC FORGN TYPE % % MAIN MW $/KWM $/MWH

1 V-CC 0 300. 600. 1950. 1950. 0.0 1200.0 6 0 10.0 28 600. 2.10 4.00
2 VLG1 0 150. 280. 3100. 2700. 710.0 0.0 1 10 10.0 56 280. 2.70 6.00
3 VLG2 0 150. 280. 3000. 2600. 1100.0 0.0 2 10 10.0 56 280. 2.70 6.00
4 VCOA 0 400. 580. 2600. 2200. 0.0 800.0 3 10 8.0 48 600. 2.92 5.00
5 NUCL 0 300. 600. 2600. 2340. 0.0 194.0 0 7 10.0 42 600. 2.50 0.50

PAGE 13
VARIABLE SYSTEM
EMISSION MATERIAL DATA

RATIO OF MATERIAL/FUEL
NO. NAME HEAT VALUE SO2 NOx
kcal/kg % %

1 V-CC 11000.0 0.0 0.5

2 VLG1 1800.0 2.5 1.0
3 VLG2 1800.0 2.5 1.0
4 VCOA 6000.0 1.0 2.0
5 NUCL 0.0 0.0 0.0

PAGE 14

VARIABLE SYSTEM

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF COMPOSITE HYDROELECTRIC PLANT TYPE HYD1

*** CAPACITY IN MW * ENERGY IN GWH ***
FIXED O&M COSTS : 0.550 $/KW-MONTH

P HYDROCONDITION 1 HYDROCONDITION 2 HYDROCONDITION 3

R P PROB.: 0.45 PROB.: 0.30 PROB.: 0.25
O E CAPACITY ENERGY CAPACITY ENERGY CAPACITY ENERGY
YEAR J R BASE PEAK BASE PEAK BASE PEAK

2003 1 1 0. 160. 70. 0. 140. 43. 0. 200. 98.

2 0. 160. 70. 0. 140. 43. 0. 200. 98.
3 0. 160. 70. 0. 140. 43. 0. 200. 98.
4 0. 160. 70. 0. 140. 43. 0. 200. 98.
[Link]. 200.
TOTAL ENERGY 281. 170. 392.

2004 2 1 137. 513. 690. 183. 447. 603. 91. 659. 798.
2 91. 589. 790. 137. 518. 643. 46. 714. 888.
3 68. 642. 890. 46. 624. 703. 23. 827. 1048.
4 91. 609. 830. 137. 528. 663. 46. 754. 948.
[Link]. 850.
TOTAL ENERGY 3201. 2610. 3682.
PAGE 15
VARIABLE SYSTEM
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF COMPOSITE HYDROELECTRIC PLANT TYPE HYD2
*** CAPACITY IN MW * ENERGY IN GWH ***
FIXED O&M COSTS : 0.550 $/KW-MONTH
P HYDROCONDITION 1 HYDROCONDITION 2 HYDROCONDITION 3
R P PROB.: 0.45 PROB.: 0.30 PROB.: 0.25
O E CAPACITY ENERGY CAPACITY ENERGY CAPACITY ENERGY
YEAR J R BASE PEAK BASE PEAK BASE PEAK
2002 1 1 0. 100. 68. 0. 80. 51. 0. 120. 84.
2 0. 100. 68. 0. 80. 51. 0. 120. 84.
3 0. 100. 68. 0. 80. 51. 0. 120. 84.
4 0. 100. 68. 0. 80. 51. 0. 120. 84.
[Link]. 120.
TOTAL ENERGY 270. 206. 335.
2005 2 1 0. 220. 156. 0. 180. 114. 0. 260. 198.
2 0. 220. 156. 0. 180. 114. 0. 260. 198.
3 0. 220. 156. 0. 180. 114. 0. 260. 198.
4 0. 220. 156. 0. 180. 114. 0. 260. 198.
[Link]. 313.
TOTAL ENERGY 624. 458. 792.

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

209
 PAGE 16

DEFINITION OF REAL EMISSION AND GROUP LIMITATION

**** FIXED SYSTEM ****

ACTIVE PLANTS FOR REAL EMISSIONS

TYPE NUMBER NAME OF PLANTS
OF PLANTS

SO2 6 COMPLETE SYSTEM

NOx 6 COMPLETE SYSTEM

ACTIVE PLANTS IN THE GROUP LIMITATIONS

GROUP NUMBER NAME OF PLANTS
NO. OF PLANTS

1 1 F-CC
2 5 FLG1 FLG2 FCOA FOIL F-GT
3 6 COMPLETE SYSTEM
4 2 FLG1 FLG2

**** VARIABLE SYSTEM ****

ACTIVE PLANTS FOR REAL EMISSIONS

TYPE NUMBER NAME OF PLANTS
OF PLANTS

SO2 4 V-CC VLG1 VLG2 VCOA

NOx 4 V-CC VLG1 VLG2 VCOA

ACTIVE PLANTS IN THE GROUP LIMITATIONS

GROUP NUMBER NAME OF PLANTS
NO. OF PLANTS

1 1 VLG2
2 3 VLG1 VLG2 VCOA
3 4 V-CC VLG1 VLG2 VCOA
4 0 NO ACTIVE PLANTS

INITIAL GROUP LIMITATIONS FOR THE SYSTEM

GROUP LIMIT ANNUAL PERIOD RATIO

NO. TYPE IND UNIT MODE LIMIT 1 2 3 4

1 FUEL 1 kT 0 10000.0

2 SO2 2 kT 0 600.0

3 NOx 3 kT 0 1000.0

4 FUEL 1 kT 0 20000.0

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

210
 PAGE 17
CONGEN

CONSTRAINTS ON CONFIGURATIONS GENERATED

CON: NUMBER OF CONFIGURATIONS
MIMIMUM
MAXIMUM
RES. PERMITTED EXTREME CONFIGURATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES
MAR- V-CC VLG2 NUCL HYD2
YEAR CON GIN VLG1 VCOA HYD1
1998 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1999 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2001 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

2002 22 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
50 3 2 0 2 0 0 1

2003 22 15 2 0 0 0 0 1 1
50 4 2 0 2 0 1 1

2004 19 20 2 0 0 0 0 2 1
40 4 2 0 2 0 2 1

2005 13 20 2 0 0 0 0 2 2
40 4 2 0 2 0 2 2

2006 17 20 2 0 0 0 0 2 2
40 4 2 0 2 1 2 2

2007 64 20 2 0 0 1 0 2 2
40 4 2 2 3 1 2 2

2008 64 20 2 0 0 2 0 2 2
40 4 2 2 4 1 2 2

2009 46 20 2 0 0 3 0 2 2
40 4 2 2 5 1 2 2

2010 46 20 2 0 0 4 0 2 2
40 4 2 2 6 1 2 2

2011 50 20 2 0 0 4 0 2 2
40 4 2 2 6 2 2 2

2012 33 20 2 0 0 5 0 2 2
40 4 2 2 7 2 2 2

2013 33 20 2 0 1 6 0 2 2
40 4 2 3 8 2 2 2

2014 33 20 2 0 3 7 0 2 2
40 4 2 5 9 2 2 2

2015 33 20 2 0 4 7 1 2 2
40 4 2 6 9 3 2 2

2016 33 20 2 0 4 8 1 2 2
40 4 2 6 10 3 2 2

2017 33 20 2 0 5 8 2 2 2
40 4 2 7 10 4 2 2
566 TOTAL NUMBER OF CONFIGURATIONS GENERATED

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

211
 PAGE 18

OPTIMUM SOLUTION

ANNUAL ADDITIONS: CAPACITY(MW) AND NUMBER OF UNITS OR PROJECTS

FOR DETAILS OF INDIVIDUAL UNITS OR PROJECTS SEE VARIABLE SYSTEM REPORT
SEE ALSO FIXED SYSTEM REPORT FOR OTHER ADDITIONS OR RETIREMENTS

NAME : V-CC VLG2 NUCL HYD2

VLG1 VCOA HYD1
SIZE (MW): 600. 280. 600. 0.
280. 580. 0.
YEAR %LOLP CAP
1998 1.682 0.
1999 4.304 0.
2000 0.458 0.
2001 0.198 600. 1
2002 0.380 1320. 2 1
2003 0.317 800. 1 1
2004 0.192 650. 1
2005 0.109 773. 1 1
2006 0.175 600. 1
2007 0.196 580. 1
2008 0.184 580. 1
2009 0.200 860. 1 1
2010 0.202 580. 1
2011 0.212 600. 1
2012 0.187 860. 1 1
2013 0.175 860. 1 1
2014 0.207 1140. 2 1
2015 0.159 880. 1 1
2016 0.205 580. 1
2017 0.177 880. 1 1

TOTALS 13143. 4 1 6 9 4 2 2

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

212
 PAGE 19

SUMMARY OF

FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

(NOMINAL CAPACITY (MW))

THERMAL FUEL TYPE TOTAL

CAPACITIES CAP

YEAR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** ****

1998 0 1080 2484 580 1015 200 174 0 0 0 5533

1999 0 1080 2484 1160 1015 200 174 0 0 0 6113

2000 0 1080 2484 1160 1015 200 348 0 0 0 6287

2001 0 1080 2484 1160 1015 200 1122 0 0 0 7061

2002 0 1080 2484 1160 1015 200 2322 0 0 0 8261

2003 0 810 2484 1160 1015 200 2922 0 0 0 8591

2004 0 810 2484 1160 1015 200 2922 0 0 0 8591

2005 0 810 2484 1740 1015 200 2922 0 0 0 9171

2006 600 810 2208 1740 1015 200 2922 0 0 0 9495

2007 600 810 2208 2320 1015 200 2922 0 0 0 10075

2008 600 810 2208 2900 1015 200 2922 0 0 0 10655

2009 600 1090 1932 3480 1015 150 2922 0 0 0 11189

2010 600 1090 1932 4060 1015 150 2922 0 0 0 11769

2011 1200 1090 1932 4060 1015 150 2922 0 0 0 12369

2012 1200 1090 2212 4640 870 150 2922 0 0 0 13084

2013 1200 1090 2492 5220 725 150 2922 0 0 0 13799

2014 1200 820 2776 5800 725 150 2922 0 0 0 14393

2015 1800 820 3056 5800 725 150 2922 0 0 0 15273

2016 1800 820 3056 6380 725 150 2922 0 0 0 15853

2017 2400 820 3336 6380 725 150 2922 0 0 0 16733

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

213
PAGE 20

SUMMARY OF

FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

(NOMINAL CAPACITY IN MW, ENERGY IN GWH)

PUMPED HYDRO TOTAL

STORAGE ELECTRIC THERMAL TOTAL SYSTEM ENERGY NOT SERVED

PUMP HYDR CAPACITY CAP RES. LOLP. HYDROCONDITION

YEAR PR. CAP PR. CAP % % 1 2 3

1998 0 0 5 1856 5533 7389 23.2 1.682 152.6 735.2 2.4

1999 0 0 5 1856 6113 7969 25.8 4.304 898.6 1254.6 614.0

2000 0 0 6 2036 6287 8323 23.8 0.458 5.8 14.7 2.2

2001 0 0 6 2036 7061 9097 28.0 0.198 2.3 5.9 0.8

2002 0 0 8 906 8261 9167 22.3 0.380 7.2 10.0 5.6

2003 0 0 9 1106 8591 9697 22.8 0.317 6.1 9.0 4.0

2004 0 0 10 1756 8591 10347 24.6 0.192 3.3 5.2 1.5

2005 0 0 11 1949 9171 11121 27.8 0.109 1.6 2.9 0.7

2006 0 0 11 1949 9495 11445 25.5 0.175 3.1 5.0 1.5

2007 0 0 12 1849 10075 11925 24.8 0.196 3.7 5.7 1.8

2008 0 0 12 1849 10655 12505 24.8 0.184 3.5 5.4 1.8

2009 0 0 12 1849 11189 13039 24.3 0.200 4.0 6.0 2.1

2010 0 0 12 1849 11769 13619 24.0 0.202 4.1 6.1 2.1

2011 0 0 12 1849 12369 14219 23.7 0.212 4.5 6.6 2.5

2012 0 0 12 1849 13084 14934 24.2 0.187 3.9 5.7 2.1

2013 0 0 12 1849 13799 15649 24.4 0.175 3.6 5.3 2.0

2014 0 0 12 1849 14393 16243 23.4 0.207 4.5 6.5 2.6

2015 0 0 12 1849 15273 17123 24.5 0.159 3.3 4.8 1.9

2016 0 0 12 1849 15853 17703 23.2 0.205 4.6 6.5 2.7

2017 0 0 12 1849 16733 18583 23.8 0.177 3.9 5.5 2.3

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

214
 PAGE 21

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

FUEL STOCK OF THERMAL PLANTS BY FUEL TYPE (KTON)

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL
DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR

1997 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1998 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00
2005 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2006 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00
2007 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00
2008 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00
2009 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00
2010 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00
2012 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00
2013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00
2014 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00
2016 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

PAGE 22

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

FUEL STOCK OF THERMAL PLANTS BY FUEL TYPE (KTON)

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

5 6 7 8 9
YEAR GTGO NGAS **** **** ****
DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR

1997 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1998 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2001 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2002 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2006 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2007 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2009 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2012 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

215
 PAGE 23

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

GENERATION BY PLANT TYPE (GWH)

HYDROCONDITION 1

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

HYDROELECTRIC 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 GR.
YEAR HYD1 HYD2 TOTAL NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL TOTAL

1998 5740 408 6148 0 2543 9645 3422 6220 1450 773 0 0 0 24053 30201
1999 5740 408 6148 0 2869 9257 5899 4977 1425 564 0 0 0 24991 31139
2000 5740 743 6483 0 2351 9908 6763 5813 1457 1243 0 0 0 27535 34018
2001 5740 743 6483 0 2508 9861 6657 5622 1457 3374 0 0 0 29479 35962
2002 540 1013 1553 0 2867 9563 7354 6732 1457 8391 0 0 0 36364 37917
2003 821 1013 1834 0 2513 10053 7517 6846 1457 9725 0 0 0 38111 39945
2004 3741 1013 4754 0 2638 9927 7431 6881 1457 8918 0 0 0 37252 42006
2005 3741 1368 5109 0 2584 9717 10845 6786 1457 7527 0 0 0 38916 44025
2006 3741 1368 5109 4185 2841 9326 10663 6688 1457 5938 0 0 0 41098 46207
2007 3538 1368 4906 4185 2907 9254 13835 6604 1457 5278 0 0 0 43520 48426
2008 3538 1368 4906 4185 2856 9142 16996 6546 1457 4664 0 0 0 45846 50752
2009 3538 1368 4906 4185 4198 8057 20495 6562 1093 3641 0 0 0 48231 53137
2010 3538 1368 4906 4185 4084 7839 23733 6561 1093 3235 0 0 0 50730 55636
2011 3538 1368 4906 8369 4042 8048 22732 6357 1093 2702 0 0 0 53343 58249
2012 3538 1368 4906 7989 3588 8022 23838 4243 1093 7251 0 0 0 56024 60930
2013 3538 1368 4906 8002 3411 8066 27118 3765 1093 7372 0 0 0 58827 63733
2014 3538 1368 4906 8250 3025 8404 30063 4073 1093 6851 0 0 0 61759 66665
2015 3538 1368 4906 12038 2943 8211 29638 4007 1093 6830 0 0 0 64760 69666
2016 3538 1368 4906 12412 2851 8292 32667 4126 1093 6453 0 0 0 67894 72800
2017 3538 1368 4906 16475 2813 8480 31143 3920 1093 7248 0 0 0 71172 76078

PAGE 24

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

GENERATION BY PLANT TYPE (GWH)

HYDROCONDITION 2

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

HYDROELECTRIC 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 GR.
YEAR HYD1 HYD2 TOTAL NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL TOTAL

1998 4710 280 4990 0 2633 9576 3600 6478 1422 920 0 0 0 24629 29619
1999 4710 280 4990 0 2645 9575 6206 5274 1414 680 0 0 0 25794 30784
2000 4710 554 5264 0 2432 9801 7167 6291 1457 1597 0 0 0 28745 34009
2001 4710 554 5264 0 2348 10040 6850 6070 1457 3927 0 0 0 30692 35956
2002 460 760 1220 0 2841 9580 7420 6745 1457 8651 0 0 0 36694 37914
2003 630 760 1390 0 2475 10085 7531 6856 1457 10149 0 0 0 38553 39943
2004 3070 760 3830 0 2538 10000 7554 6879 1457 9745 0 0 0 38173 42003
2005 3070 1012 4082 0 2575 9690 11118 6788 1457 8314 0 0 0 39942 44024
2006 3070 1012 4082 4185 2839 9313 10915 6688 1457 6727 0 0 0 42124 46206
2007 2903 1012 3915 4185 2886 9249 14275 6597 1457 5859 0 0 0 44508 48423
2008 2903 1012 3915 4185 2891 9080 17537 6534 1457 5150 0 0 0 46834 50749
2009 2903 1012 3915 4185 4221 7993 21094 6552 1093 4081 0 0 0 49219 53134
2010 2903 1012 3915 4185 4079 7798 24368 6549 1093 3646 0 0 0 51718 55633
2011 2903 1012 3915 8369 4136 7896 23321 6392 1093 3124 0 0 0 54331 58246
2012 2903 1012 3915 7990 3665 8095 24034 4660 1093 7476 0 0 0 57013 60928
2013 2903 1012 3915 8191 3605 8003 27381 3930 1093 7613 0 0 0 59816 63731
2014 2903 1012 3915 8244 3043 8307 30853 4163 1093 7044 0 0 0 62747 66662
2015 2903 1012 3915 12035 3017 8280 30524 4126 1093 6674 0 0 0 65749 69664
2016 2903 1012 3915 12404 2875 8182 33506 4226 1093 6595 0 0 0 68881 72796
2017 2903 1012 3915 16484 2841 8312 32546 4063 1093 6822 0 0 0 72161 76076

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

216
 PAGE 25

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

GENERATION BY PLANT TYPE (GWH)

HYDROCONDITION 3

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

HYDROELECTRIC 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 GR.
YEAR HYD1 HYD2 TOTAL NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL TOTAL

1998 6930 536 7466 0 2573 9591 3145 5586 1457 532 0 0 0 22884 30350
1999 6930 536 7466 0 3192 8838 5313 4674 1423 519 0 0 0 23959 31425
2000 6930 951 7881 0 2756 9442 6328 5272 1457 885 0 0 0 26140 34021
2001 6930 951 7881 0 2843 9476 6384 5259 1457 2662 0 0 0 28081 35962
2002 680 1286 1966 0 2924 9526 7236 6723 1457 8087 0 0 0 35953 37919
2003 1072 1286 2358 0 2555 9997 7478 6840 1457 9263 0 0 0 37590 39948
2004 4362 1286 5648 0 2722 9891 7168 6890 1457 8233 0 0 0 36361 42009
2005 4362 1743 6105 0 2479 9857 10425 6813 1457 6888 0 0 0 37919 44024
2006 4362 1743 6105 4185 2673 9492 10304 6671 1457 5322 0 0 0 40104 46209
2007 4122 1743 5865 4185 2728 9461 13498 6566 1457 4667 0 0 0 42562 48427
2008 4122 1743 5865 4185 2717 9309 16557 6498 1457 4166 0 0 0 44889 50754
2009 4122 1743 5865 4185 4006 8282 19980 6545 1093 3183 0 0 0 47274 53139
2010 4122 1743 5865 4185 3958 7999 23206 6578 1093 2752 0 0 0 49771 55636
2011 4122 1743 5865 8369 3972 8051 22285 6227 1093 2389 0 0 0 52386 58251
2012 4122 1743 5865 8008 3645 7906 23550 4050 1093 6814 0 0 0 55066 60931
2013 4122 1743 5865 8208 3380 8067 26665 3474 1093 6984 0 0 0 57871 63736
2014 4122 1743 5865 8262 2892 8601 29452 3996 1093 6505 0 0 0 60801 66666
2015 4122 1743 5865 12085 2808 8320 28457 3696 1093 7344 0 0 0 63803 69668
2016 4122 1743 5865 12442 2829 8517 30725 3867 1093 7463 0 0 0 66936 72801
2017 4122 1743 5865 16532 2860 8763 27901 3500 1093 9563 0 0 0 70212 76077

PAGE 26

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

EXPECTED GENERATION BY PLANT TYPE (GWH),

WEIGHTED BY PROBABILITIES OF HYDRO CONDITIONS

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

HYDROELECTRIC 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 GR.
YEAR HYD1 HYD2 TOTAL NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL TOTAL

1998 5729 402 6131 0 2578 9611 3406 6139 1443 757 0 0 0 23934 30065
1999 5729 402 6131 0 2883 9248 5845 4990 1421 587 0 0 0 24974 31105
2000 5729 738 6467 0 2477 9760 6776 5821 1457 1260 0 0 0 27551 34018
2001 5729 738 6467 0 2544 9818 6647 5666 1457 3362 0 0 0 29494 35961
2002 551 1005 1556 0 2873 9558 7344 6733 1457 8393 0 0 0 36358 37914
2003 827 1005 1832 0 2512 10049 7512 6847 1457 9737 0 0 0 38114 39946
2004 3695 1005 4700 0 2629 9940 7402 6883 1457 8995 0 0 0 37306 42006
2005 3695 1355 5050 0 2555 9744 10822 6793 1457 7603 0 0 0 38974 44024
2006 3695 1355 5050 4185 2798 9364 10649 6684 1457 6021 0 0 0 41158 46208
2007 3493 1355 4848 4185 2856 9304 13883 6592 1457 5300 0 0 0 43577 48425
2008 3493 1355 4848 4185 2832 9165 17048 6530 1457 4685 0 0 0 45902 50750
2009 3493 1355 4848 4185 4157 8094 20546 6555 1093 3658 0 0 0 48288 53136
2010 3493 1355 4848 4185 4051 7866 23792 6562 1093 3238 0 0 0 50787 55635
2011 3493 1355 4848 8369 4053 8003 22797 6335 1093 2750 0 0 0 53400 58248
2012 3493 1355 4848 7994 3626 8015 23825 4320 1093 7209 0 0 0 56082 60930
2013 3493 1355 4848 8110 3462 8047 27084 3742 1093 7347 0 0 0 58885 63733
2014 3493 1355 4848 8251 2997 8424 30147 4081 1093 6823 0 0 0 61816 66664
2015 3493 1355 4848 12049 2931 8259 29609 3965 1093 6912 0 0 0 64818 69666
2016 3493 1355 4848 12417 2853 8315 32433 4091 1093 6748 0 0 0 67950 72798
2017 3493 1355 4848 16492 2833 8500 30754 3858 1093 7699 0 0 0 71229 76077

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

217
 PAGE 27

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

FUEL CONSUMPTION OF THERMAL PLANTS BY FUEL TYPE (KTON)

HYDROCONDITION 1

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL
DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR

1998 0.00 0.00 4379.51 0.00 14682.92 0.00 1508.47 0.00 0.00 1440.22
1999 0.00 0.00 4941.18 0.00 14092.40 0.00 2600.40 0.00 0.00 1152.44
2000 0.00 0.00 4049.38 0.00 15082.85 0.00 2981.41 0.00 0.00 1346.02
2001 0.00 0.00 4318.86 0.00 15011.68 0.00 2934.41 0.00 0.00 1301.69
2002 0.00 0.00 4937.08 0.00 14557.45 0.00 3241.81 0.00 0.00 1558.76
2003 0.00 0.00 4328.58 0.00 15304.67 0.00 3313.77 0.00 0.00 1585.15
2004 0.00 0.00 4543.09 0.00 15112.72 0.00 3275.76 0.00 0.00 1593.20
2005 0.00 0.00 4449.36 0.00 14792.90 0.00 3163.21 1514.17 0.00 1571.22
2006 0.00 0.00 4892.74 0.00 14198.07 0.00 3100.94 1497.36 0.00 1548.72
2007 0.00 0.00 5007.19 0.00 14087.49 0.00 2979.05 2920.39 0.00 1529.09
2008 0.00 0.00 4919.07 0.00 13917.40 0.00 2860.13 4335.75 0.00 1515.75
2009 0.00 0.00 7100.90 0.00 12266.02 0.00 2849.76 5789.34 0.00 1519.49
2010 0.00 0.00 6907.62 0.00 11933.21 0.00 2805.42 7166.95 0.00 1519.20
2011 0.00 0.00 6845.01 0.00 12251.76 0.00 2634.68 6914.00 0.00 1471.86
2012 0.00 0.00 6081.26 0.00 12220.50 0.00 2551.61 7448.15 0.00 982.45
2013 0.00 0.00 5780.15 0.00 12299.78 0.00 2558.17 8795.45 0.00 871.86
2014 0.00 0.00 5114.11 0.00 12817.87 0.00 2450.95 10111.01 0.00 943.05
2015 0.00 0.00 4980.27 0.00 12536.03 0.00 2483.78 9904.70 0.00 927.83
2016 0.00 0.00 4823.47 0.00 12656.41 0.00 2327.74 11300.52 0.00 955.37
2017 0.00 0.00 4767.47 0.00 12938.15 0.00 2093.42 10891.20 0.00 907.57

PAGE 28

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

FUEL CONSUMPTION OF THERMAL PLANTS BY FUEL TYPE (KTON)

HYDROCONDITION 1

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

5 6 7 8 9
YEAR GTGO NGAS **** **** ****
DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR

1998 478.47 0.00 0.00 143.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1999 470.20 0.00 0.00 105.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2000 480.97 0.00 0.00 231.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2001 480.97 0.00 0.00 610.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2002 480.97 0.00 0.00 1499.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2003 480.97 0.00 0.00 1733.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2004 480.97 0.00 0.00 1590.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2005 480.97 0.00 0.00 1340.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2006 480.97 0.00 0.00 1056.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2007 480.97 0.00 0.00 939.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2008 480.97 0.00 0.00 828.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2009 360.73 0.00 0.00 646.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2010 360.73 0.00 0.00 574.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2011 360.73 0.00 0.00 479.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2012 360.73 0.00 0.00 1289.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2013 360.73 0.00 0.00 1312.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2014 360.73 0.00 0.00 1217.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2015 360.73 0.00 0.00 1215.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2016 360.73 0.00 0.00 1146.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2017 360.73 0.00 0.00 1289.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

218
 PAGE 29

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

FUEL CONSUMPTION OF THERMAL PLANTS BY FUEL TYPE (KTON)

HYDROCONDITION 2

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL
DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR

1998 0.00 0.00 4534.53 0.00 14578.20 0.00 1586.81 0.00 0.00 1500.01
1999 0.00 0.00 4555.27 0.00 14576.64 0.00 2735.75 0.00 0.00 1221.11
2000 0.00 0.00 4188.16 0.00 14921.18 0.00 3159.25 0.00 0.00 1456.72
2001 0.00 0.00 4044.43 0.00 15283.78 0.00 3019.66 0.00 0.00 1405.58
2002 0.00 0.00 4893.37 0.00 14583.30 0.00 3270.83 0.00 0.00 1561.71
2003 0.00 0.00 4262.97 0.00 15352.89 0.00 3319.71 0.00 0.00 1587.44
2004 0.00 0.00 4371.76 0.00 15223.67 0.00 3329.95 0.00 0.00 1592.91
2005 0.00 0.00 4433.96 0.00 14751.15 0.00 3242.66 1552.17 0.00 1571.85
2006 0.00 0.00 4888.78 0.00 14177.81 0.00 3173.83 1533.02 0.00 1548.51
2007 0.00 0.00 4971.08 0.00 14079.77 0.00 3078.55 3008.81 0.00 1527.49
2008 0.00 0.00 4979.20 0.00 13822.18 0.00 2994.43 4433.32 0.00 1513.01
2009 0.00 0.00 7136.20 0.00 12167.74 0.00 2972.36 5921.97 0.00 1517.09
2010 0.00 0.00 6899.95 0.00 11870.61 0.00 2882.01 7357.26 0.00 1516.34
2011 0.00 0.00 7005.25 0.00 12020.71 0.00 2671.08 7122.73 0.00 1480.16
2012 0.00 0.00 6211.87 0.00 12336.00 0.00 2564.86 7516.61 0.00 1079.06
2013 0.00 0.00 6107.70 0.00 12203.62 0.00 2505.58 8953.11 0.00 909.95
2014 0.00 0.00 5141.24 0.00 12671.89 0.00 2507.91 10383.63 0.00 963.94
2015 0.00 0.00 5104.96 0.00 12630.28 0.00 2525.07 10231.89 0.00 955.39
2016 0.00 0.00 4863.21 0.00 12492.36 0.00 2357.57 11619.20 0.00 978.57
2017 0.00 0.00 4810.06 0.00 12690.51 0.00 2172.34 11396.39 0.00 940.68

PAGE 30

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

FUEL CONSUMPTION OF THERMAL PLANTS BY FUEL TYPE (KTON)

HYDROCONDITION 2

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

5 6 7 8 9
YEAR GTGO NGAS **** **** ****
DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR

1998 469.26 0.00 0.00 171.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1999 466.72 0.00 0.00 126.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2000 480.97 0.00 0.00 297.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2001 480.97 0.00 0.00 711.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2002 480.97 0.00 0.00 1546.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2003 480.97 0.00 0.00 1808.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2004 480.97 0.00 0.00 1737.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2005 480.97 0.00 0.00 1481.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2006 480.97 0.00 0.00 1197.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2007 480.97 0.00 0.00 1043.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2008 480.97 0.00 0.00 917.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2009 360.73 0.00 0.00 724.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2010 360.73 0.00 0.00 647.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2011 360.73 0.00 0.00 554.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2012 360.73 0.00 0.00 1330.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2013 360.73 0.00 0.00 1354.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2014 360.73 0.00 0.00 1251.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2015 360.73 0.00 0.00 1185.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2016 360.73 0.00 0.00 1172.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2017 360.73 0.00 0.00 1213.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

219
 PAGE 31

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

FUEL CONSUMPTION OF THERMAL PLANTS BY FUEL TYPE (KTON)

HYDROCONDITION 3

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL
DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR

1998 0.00 0.00 4432.01 0.00 14600.85 0.00 1386.41 0.00 0.00 1293.36
1999 0.00 0.00 5497.01 0.00 13454.27 0.00 2342.09 0.00 0.00 1082.20
2000 0.00 0.00 4747.29 0.00 14374.69 0.00 2789.46 0.00 0.00 1220.71
2001 0.00 0.00 4895.51 0.00 14425.95 0.00 2814.19 0.00 0.00 1217.82
2002 0.00 0.00 5035.95 0.00 14501.30 0.00 3189.49 0.00 0.00 1556.66
2003 0.00 0.00 4399.53 0.00 15219.27 0.00 3296.51 0.00 0.00 1583.89
2004 0.00 0.00 4688.38 0.00 15057.05 0.00 3159.56 0.00 0.00 1595.42
2005 0.00 0.00 4269.76 0.00 15006.31 0.00 3010.34 1483.98 0.00 1577.66
2006 0.00 0.00 4604.09 0.00 14450.74 0.00 2982.74 1459.70 0.00 1544.57
2007 0.00 0.00 4697.55 0.00 14402.98 0.00 2899.44 2855.81 0.00 1520.42
2008 0.00 0.00 4679.08 0.00 14171.39 0.00 2845.81 4167.99 0.00 1504.53
2009 0.00 0.00 6770.77 0.00 12608.76 0.00 2825.78 5599.38 0.00 1515.39
2010 0.00 0.00 6692.31 0.00 12177.05 0.00 2798.76 6955.93 0.00 1523.08
2011 0.00 0.00 6723.50 0.00 12256.09 0.00 2647.63 6717.28 0.00 1441.75
2012 0.00 0.00 6182.67 0.00 12043.18 0.00 2512.09 7366.06 0.00 937.84
2013 0.00 0.00 5729.27 0.00 12299.04 0.00 2415.73 8741.73 0.00 804.41
2014 0.00 0.00 4887.26 0.00 13113.78 0.00 2437.52 9871.37 0.00 925.26
2015 0.00 0.00 4752.00 0.00 12686.89 0.00 2374.80 9519.57 0.00 855.84
2016 0.00 0.00 4795.35 0.00 12987.88 0.00 2130.51 10683.89 0.00 895.44
2017 0.00 0.00 4866.74 0.00 13346.74 0.00 1672.31 9947.82 0.00 810.37

PAGE 32

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

FUEL CONSUMPTION OF THERMAL PLANTS BY FUEL TYPE (KTON)

HYDROCONDITION 3

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

5 6 7 8 9
YEAR GTGO NGAS **** **** ****
DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR

1998 480.97 0.00 0.00 99.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1999 469.53 0.00 0.00 96.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2000 480.97 0.00 0.00 164.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2001 480.97 0.00 0.00 482.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2002 480.97 0.00 0.00 1445.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2003 480.97 0.00 0.00 1651.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2004 480.97 0.00 0.00 1467.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2005 480.97 0.00 0.00 1224.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2006 480.97 0.00 0.00 945.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2007 480.97 0.00 0.00 828.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2008 480.97 0.00 0.00 739.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2009 360.73 0.00 0.00 564.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2010 360.73 0.00 0.00 488.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2011 360.73 0.00 0.00 424.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2012 360.73 0.00 0.00 1210.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2013 360.73 0.00 0.00 1242.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2014 360.73 0.00 0.00 1155.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2015 360.73 0.00 0.00 1306.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2016 360.73 0.00 0.00 1328.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2017 360.73 0.00 0.00 1703.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

220
 PAGE 33
SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

EXPECTED FUEL CONSUMPTION OF THERMAL PLANTS BY FUEL TYPE (KTON),

WEIGHTED BY PROBABILITIES OF HYDRO CONDITIONS

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL
DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR

1998 0.00 0.00 4439.14 0.00 14630.98 0.00 1501.46 0.00 0.00 1421.44
1999 0.00 0.00 4964.36 0.00 14078.14 0.00 2576.43 0.00 0.00 1155.48
2000 0.00 0.00 4265.49 0.00 14857.31 0.00 2986.78 0.00 0.00 1347.90
2001 0.00 0.00 4380.70 0.00 14946.88 0.00 2929.93 0.00 0.00 1311.89
2002 0.00 0.00 4948.68 0.00 14551.17 0.00 3237.44 0.00 0.00 1559.12
2003 0.00 0.00 4326.63 0.00 15297.79 0.00 3311.24 0.00 0.00 1585.52
2004 0.00 0.00 4528.01 0.00 15132.09 0.00 3262.97 0.00 0.00 1593.67
2005 0.00 0.00 4399.84 0.00 14833.73 0.00 3148.83 1518.02 0.00 1573.02
2006 0.00 0.00 4819.39 0.00 14255.16 0.00 3093.26 1498.64 0.00 1547.62
2007 0.00 0.00 4918.95 0.00 14164.05 0.00 2989.00 2930.77 0.00 1526.44
2008 0.00 0.00 4877.11 0.00 13952.33 0.00 2896.84 4323.08 0.00 1512.13
2009 0.00 0.00 7028.96 0.00 12322.22 0.00 2880.54 5781.63 0.00 1517.74
2010 0.00 0.00 6851.49 0.00 11975.39 0.00 2826.73 7171.29 0.00 1519.32
2011 0.00 0.00 6862.71 0.00 12183.53 0.00 2648.84 6927.44 0.00 1466.82
2012 0.00 0.00 6145.79 0.00 12210.82 0.00 2545.71 7448.16 0.00 1000.28
2013 0.00 0.00 5865.69 0.00 12270.75 0.00 2506.78 8829.32 0.00 866.42
2014 0.00 0.00 5065.54 0.00 12848.05 0.00 2464.68 10132.89 0.00 944.87
2015 0.00 0.00 4960.61 0.00 12602.02 0.00 2468.92 9906.57 0.00 918.10
2016 0.00 0.00 4828.36 0.00 12690.06 0.00 2287.39 11241.97 0.00 947.35
2017 0.00 0.00 4805.06 0.00 12966.01 0.00 2011.82 10806.91 0.00 893.21

PAGE 34

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

EXPECTED FUEL CONSUMPTION OF THERMAL PLANTS BY FUEL TYPE (KTON),

WEIGHTED BY PROBABILITIES OF HYDRO CONDITIONS

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

5 6 7 8 9
YEAR GTGO NGAS **** **** ****
DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR DOM. FOR

1998 0.00 0.00 4439.14 0.00 14630.98 0.00 1501.46 0.00 0.00 1421.44
1999 0.00 0.00 4964.36 0.00 14078.14 0.00 2576.43 0.00 0.00 1155.48
2000 0.00 0.00 4265.49 0.00 14857.31 0.00 2986.78 0.00 0.00 1347.90
2001 0.00 0.00 4380.70 0.00 14946.88 0.00 2929.93 0.00 0.00 1311.89
2002 0.00 0.00 4948.68 0.00 14551.17 0.00 3237.44 0.00 0.00 1559.12
2003 0.00 0.00 4326.63 0.00 15297.79 0.00 3311.24 0.00 0.00 1585.52
2004 0.00 0.00 4528.01 0.00 15132.09 0.00 3262.97 0.00 0.00 1593.67
2005 0.00 0.00 4399.84 0.00 14833.73 0.00 3148.83 1518.02 0.00 1573.02
2006 0.00 0.00 4819.39 0.00 14255.16 0.00 3093.26 1498.64 0.00 1547.62
2007 0.00 0.00 4918.95 0.00 14164.05 0.00 2989.00 2930.77 0.00 1526.44
2008 0.00 0.00 4877.11 0.00 13952.33 0.00 2896.84 4323.08 0.00 1512.13
2009 0.00 0.00 7028.96 0.00 12322.22 0.00 2880.54 5781.63 0.00 1517.74
2010 0.00 0.00 6851.49 0.00 11975.39 0.00 2826.73 7171.29 0.00 1519.32
2011 0.00 0.00 6862.71 0.00 12183.53 0.00 2648.84 6927.44 0.00 1466.82
2012 0.00 0.00 6145.79 0.00 12210.82 0.00 2545.71 7448.16 0.00 1000.28
2013 0.00 0.00 5865.69 0.00 12270.75 0.00 2506.78 8829.32 0.00 866.42
2014 0.00 0.00 5065.54 0.00 12848.05 0.00 2464.68 10132.89 0.00 944.87
2015 0.00 0.00 4960.61 0.00 12602.02 0.00 2468.92 9906.57 0.00 918.10
2016 0.00 0.00 4828.36 0.00 12690.06 0.00 2287.39 11241.97 0.00 947.35
2017 0.00 0.00 4805.06 0.00 12966.01 0.00 2011.82 10806.91 0.00 893.21

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

221
 PAGE 35

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

POLLUTING MATERIAL SO2 EMITTED BY FUEL TYPE IN ( kT )

HYDROCONDITION 1

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL

1998 0.0 116.3 383.7 15.3 14.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 532.3
1999 0.0 131.2 366.6 26.8 11.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 538.8
2000 0.0 107.4 390.8 30.5 13.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 544.8
2001 0.0 114.3 383.8 30.1 13.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 543.9
2002 0.0 126.4 369.8 32.9 15.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 547.2
2003 0.0 110.1 386.1 33.5 15.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 548.0
2004 0.0 115.3 380.1 33.2 16.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 547.0
2005 0.0 113.4 371.8 47.5 15.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 550.9
2006 0.0 124.7 356.9 46.8 15.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 546.4
2007 0.0 127.5 354.3 60.2 15.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 559.8
2008 0.0 125.6 350.4 73.6 15.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 567.3
2009 0.0 181.3 308.8 88.3 15.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 595.5
2010 0.0 176.6 300.8 102.0 15.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 596.5
2011 0.0 175.8 309.5 98.0 14.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.0
2012 0.0 160.1 313.4 104.1 10.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 589.6
2013 0.0 151.9 315.2 118.0 9.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 595.9
2014 0.0 132.6 325.4 130.5 9.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 599.9
2015 0.0 129.7 321.4 129.1 9.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 591.5
2016 0.0 125.1 321.7 141.7 9.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.0
2017 0.0 123.9 329.7 135.2 9.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 599.9

PAGE 36

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

POLLUTING MATERIAL SO2 EMITTED BY FUEL TYPE IN ( kT )

HYDROCONDITION 2

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL

1998 0.0 120.3 379.7 16.0 15.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 533.4
1999 0.0 120.9 377.2 28.0 12.5 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 540.9
2000 0.0 111.0 386.6 32.0 14.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 546.7
2001 0.0 106.9 391.0 30.9 14.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 545.5
2002 0.0 125.3 370.8 33.1 15.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 547.3
2003 0.0 108.4 387.7 33.5 15.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 547.9
2004 0.0 111.0 383.9 33.6 16.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 546.9
2005 0.0 112.8 371.4 48.5 15.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 550.9
2006 0.0 124.3 356.9 47.7 15.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 546.9
2007 0.0 126.6 354.5 61.9 15.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 560.8
2008 0.0 126.9 348.2 75.6 15.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 568.4
2009 0.0 182.1 306.5 90.5 15.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 596.2
2010 0.0 176.4 299.3 104.3 15.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 597.1
2011 0.0 179.3 303.8 100.2 15.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.1
2012 0.0 162.5 315.7 104.8 11.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 595.9
2013 0.0 158.7 311.4 118.8 9.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.0
2014 0.0 133.1 321.8 133.5 9.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.0
2015 0.0 132.4 321.8 132.4 9.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 598.1
2016 0.0 125.8 317.7 144.8 9.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.0
2017 0.0 124.5 323.4 140.7 9.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.0

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

222
 PAGE 37

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

POLLUTING MATERIAL SO2 EMITTED BY FUEL TYPE IN ( kT )

HYDROCONDITION 3

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL

1998 0.0 117.8 382.2 14.2 13.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 529.8
1999 0.0 146.1 352.5 24.3 11.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 536.4
2000 0.0 126.1 373.9 28.8 12.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 543.7
2001 0.0 129.8 370.2 29.0 12.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 543.9
2002 0.0 128.9 367.9 32.4 15.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 547.3
2003 0.0 111.9 383.5 33.3 15.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 547.0
2004 0.0 119.0 377.7 32.1 16.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 547.2
2005 0.0 109.5 376.7 45.9 15.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 550.4
2006 0.0 118.3 362.9 45.4 15.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 544.5
2007 0.0 120.6 362.0 59.0 15.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 559.3
2008 0.0 120.2 356.6 72.0 15.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 566.4
2009 0.0 174.1 317.3 86.4 15.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 594.9
2010 0.0 171.8 306.7 100.1 15.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 595.7
2011 0.0 173.1 309.4 96.4 14.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 595.3
2012 0.0 163.1 310.3 103.1 9.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 588.0
2013 0.0 151.0 315.5 116.1 8.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 592.7
2014 0.0 127.8 332.6 128.3 9.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.0
2015 0.0 125.1 325.1 124.3 8.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 585.1
2016 0.0 124.8 330.5 133.7 9.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.0
2017 0.0 127.5 340.8 121.6 8.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.1

PAGE 38

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

EXPECTED POLLUTING MATERIAL SO2 EMITTED BY FUEL TYPE IN ( kT )

WEIGHTED BY PROBABILITIES OF HYDRO CONDITIONS

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL

1998 0.0 117.9 382.1 15.2 14.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 532.0
1999 0.0 131.9 366.3 26.6 11.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 539.0
2000 0.0 113.2 385.3 30.5 13.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 545.1
2001 0.0 116.0 382.6 30.1 13.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 544.5
2002 0.0 126.7 369.6 32.8 15.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 547.2
2003 0.0 110.0 385.9 33.5 15.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 547.7
2004 0.0 114.9 380.6 33.0 16.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 546.9
2005 0.0 112.2 372.9 47.4 15.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 550.7
2006 0.0 123.0 358.4 46.7 15.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 546.1
2007 0.0 125.5 356.3 60.4 15.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 560.0
2008 0.0 124.6 351.3 73.8 15.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 567.3
2009 0.0 179.7 310.3 88.5 15.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 595.6
2010 0.0 175.3 301.8 102.2 15.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 596.4
2011 0.0 176.2 307.8 98.3 14.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 598.9
2012 0.0 161.6 313.3 104.1 10.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 591.1
2013 0.0 153.7 314.1 117.8 8.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 596.3
2014 0.0 131.6 326.1 130.9 9.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.0
2015 0.0 129.3 322.4 128.9 9.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 591.8
2016 0.0 125.2 322.7 140.6 9.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.0
2017 0.0 125.0 330.6 133.4 9.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.0

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

223
 PAGE 39

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

POLLUTING MATERIAL NOx EMITTED BY FUEL TYPE IN ( kT )

HYDROCONDITION 1

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL

1998 0.0 46.5 153.5 30.6 43.7 2.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 277.4
1999 0.0 52.5 146.6 53.6 35.6 2.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 291.1
2000 0.0 43.0 156.3 60.9 41.1 2.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 304.9
2001 0.0 45.7 153.5 60.2 39.9 2.4 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 304.8
2002 0.0 50.6 147.9 65.7 47.0 2.4 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 321.1
2003 0.0 44.0 154.4 67.0 47.8 2.4 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 324.3
2004 0.0 46.1 152.0 66.3 48.0 2.4 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 322.7
2005 0.0 45.3 148.7 95.0 47.4 2.4 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 345.5
2006 0.0 49.9 142.8 93.6 46.8 2.4 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 340.8
2007 0.0 51.0 141.7 120.4 46.2 2.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 366.4
2008 0.0 50.2 140.2 147.2 45.8 2.4 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 389.9
2009 0.0 72.5 123.5 176.6 45.9 1.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 423.5
2010 0.0 70.6 120.3 203.9 45.9 1.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 445.4
2011 0.0 70.3 123.8 196.0 44.6 1.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 438.9
2012 0.0 64.0 125.4 208.3 30.5 1.8 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 436.4
2013 0.0 60.8 126.1 236.0 26.9 1.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 458.2
2014 0.0 53.0 130.2 261.1 28.9 1.8 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 481.1
2015 0.0 51.9 128.6 258.2 28.4 1.8 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 475.0
2016 0.0 50.0 128.7 283.4 29.2 1.8 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 498.8
2017 0.0 49.6 131.9 270.5 27.9 1.8 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 488.1

PAGE 40

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

POLLUTING MATERIAL NOx EMITTED BY FUEL TYPE IN ( kT )

HYDROCONDITION 2

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL

1998 0.0 48.1 151.9 32.0 45.3 2.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 280.5
1999 0.0 48.3 150.9 56.0 37.5 2.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 295.6
2000 0.0 44.4 154.7 64.1 44.2 2.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 311.3
2001 0.0 42.8 156.4 61.7 42.8 2.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 309.7
2002 0.0 50.1 148.3 66.2 47.1 2.4 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 321.8
2003 0.0 43.4 155.1 67.1 47.8 2.4 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 324.8
2004 0.0 44.4 153.6 67.2 48.0 2.4 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 324.3
2005 0.0 45.1 148.6 97.0 47.4 2.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 347.9
2006 0.0 49.7 142.8 95.5 46.8 2.4 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 343.2
2007 0.0 50.6 141.8 123.7 46.2 2.4 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 369.9
2008 0.0 50.7 139.3 151.2 45.8 2.4 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 394.0
2009 0.0 72.8 122.6 181.0 45.9 1.8 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 427.7
2010 0.0 70.5 119.7 208.6 45.9 1.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 449.7
2011 0.0 71.7 121.5 200.3 44.9 1.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 443.0
2012 0.0 65.0 126.3 209.7 33.2 1.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 442.7
2013 0.0 63.5 124.6 237.6 27.9 1.8 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 462.2
2014 0.0 53.2 128.7 266.9 29.4 1.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 486.3
2015 0.0 52.9 128.7 264.7 29.2 1.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 483.2
2016 0.0 50.3 127.1 289.6 29.8 1.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 504.5
2017 0.0 49.8 129.3 281.4 28.8 1.8 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 497.2

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

224
 PAGE 41

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

POLLUTING MATERIAL NOx EMITTED BY FUEL TYPE IN ( kT )

HYDROCONDITION 3

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL

1998 0.0 47.1 152.9 28.5 39.6 2.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 271.0
1999 0.0 58.5 141.0 48.7 33.7 2.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 284.7
2000 0.0 50.4 149.6 57.5 37.6 2.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 298.3
2001 0.0 51.9 148.1 58.1 37.5 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 300.4
2002 0.0 51.5 147.2 64.8 47.0 2.4 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 320.1
2003 0.0 44.8 153.4 66.7 47.7 2.4 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 323.3
2004 0.0 47.6 151.1 64.3 48.1 2.4 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 320.8
2005 0.0 43.8 150.7 91.8 47.6 2.4 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 342.4
2006 0.0 47.3 145.2 90.9 46.6 2.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 337.1
2007 0.0 48.2 144.8 117.9 46.0 2.4 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 363.4
2008 0.0 48.1 142.6 144.0 45.5 2.4 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 386.3
2009 0.0 69.6 126.9 172.8 45.8 1.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 419.7
2010 0.0 68.7 122.7 200.1 46.0 1.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 441.7
2011 0.0 69.2 123.8 192.8 43.8 1.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 433.5
2012 0.0 65.2 124.1 206.1 29.2 1.8 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 432.5
2013 0.0 60.4 126.2 232.3 25.0 1.8 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 451.9
2014 0.0 51.1 133.1 256.6 28.4 1.8 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 476.8
2015 0.0 50.0 130.0 248.6 26.4 1.8 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 463.3
2016 0.0 49.9 132.2 267.4 27.5 1.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 485.4
2017 0.0 51.0 136.3 243.1 25.2 1.8 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 465.9

PAGE 42

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

EXPECTED POLLUTING MATERIAL NOx EMITTED BY FUEL TYPE IN ( kT )

WEIGHTED BY PROBABILITIES OF HYDRO CONDITIONS

THERMAL FUEL TYPES

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
YEAR NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** TOTAL

1998 0.0 47.2 152.8 30.5 43.2 2.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 276.8
1999 0.0 52.7 146.5 53.1 35.7 2.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 290.8
2000 0.0 45.3 154.1 61.0 41.2 2.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 305.2
2001 0.0 46.4 153.0 60.1 40.2 2.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 305.1
2002 0.0 50.7 147.9 65.6 47.1 2.4 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 321.2
2003 0.0 44.0 154.4 66.9 47.8 2.4 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 324.2
2004 0.0 46.0 152.3 66.1 48.0 2.4 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 322.8
2005 0.0 44.9 149.2 94.8 47.4 2.4 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 345.5
2006 0.0 49.2 143.4 93.5 46.7 2.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 340.6
2007 0.0 50.2 142.5 120.8 46.1 2.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 366.7
2008 0.0 49.8 140.5 147.6 45.7 2.4 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 390.2
2009 0.0 71.9 124.1 177.0 45.9 1.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 423.9
2010 0.0 70.1 120.7 204.4 45.9 1.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 445.8
2011 0.0 70.5 123.1 196.5 44.5 1.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 438.8
2012 0.0 64.6 125.3 208.2 31.0 1.8 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 437.3
2013 0.0 61.5 125.7 235.6 26.7 1.8 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 457.8
2014 0.0 52.6 130.5 261.7 28.9 1.8 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 481.6
2015 0.0 51.7 129.0 257.8 28.2 1.8 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 474.6
2016 0.0 50.1 129.1 281.2 29.0 1.8 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 497.2
2017 0.0 50.0 132.2 266.9 27.5 1.8 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 485.3

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

225
 PAGE 43

SUMMARY OF
FIXED SYSTEM PLUS OPTIMUM SOLUTION

ACTUAL CONTRIBUTION VERSUS IMPOSED LIMITS OF GROUP LIMITATION

1 2 3 4
YEAR FUEL SO2 NOx
FUEL
kT kT kT kT
CONTRIB. LIMIT CONTRIB. LIMIT CONTRIB. LIMIT CONTRIB. LIMIT

1998 140.92 10000.00 532.02 600.00 276.76 1000.00 20000.00 20000.00

1999 109.37 10000.00 538.91 600.00 290.94 1000.00 19924.48 20000.00
2000 234.54 10000.00 545.13 600.00 305.16 1000.00 19939.58 20000.00
2001 269.22 10000.00 544.40 600.00 305.17 1000.00 19941.25 20000.00
2002 256.23 10000.00 547.22 600.00 321.11 1000.00 19852.60 20000.00
2003 191.40 10000.00 547.77 600.00 324.17 1000.00 19838.86 20000.00
2004 189.36 10000.00 547.02 600.00 322.75 1000.00 19822.97 20000.00
2005 124.21 10000.00 550.75 600.00 345.47 1000.00 19405.19 20000.00
2006 83.80 10000.00 546.13 600.00 340.53 1000.00 19256.49 20000.00
2007 72.80 10000.00 560.02 600.00 366.79 1000.00 19273.39 20000.00
2008 53.56 10000.00 567.37 600.00 390.25 1000.00 19037.28 20000.00
2009 22.48 10000.00 595.58 600.00 423.91 1000.00 17492.79 20000.00
2010 17.35 10000.00 596.45 600.00 445.86 1000.00 17061.28 20000.00
2011 17.83 10000.00 598.83 600.00 438.82 1000.00 17466.07 20000.00
2012 486.45 10000.00 591.08 600.00 437.29 1000.00 16981.18 20000.00
2013 903.00 10000.00 596.32 600.00 457.75 1000.00 16334.15 20000.00
2014 1018.92 10000.00 600.00 600.00 481.58 1000.00 15764.25 20000.00
2015 1251.81 10000.00 591.86 600.00 474.58 1000.00 15439.73 20000.00
2016 1329.07 10000.00 600.00 600.00 497.18 1000.00 15254.77 20000.00
2017 1143.91 10000.00 600.00 600.00 485.25 1000.00 15971.95 20000.00

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

226
 PAGE 44

DYNPRO
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES IN $/KW
CAPITAL COSTS INCLUSIVE CONSTR. PLANT CAPITAL COSTS
PLANT (DEPRECIABLE PART) IDC TIME LIFE (NON-DEPREC. PART)
DOMESTIC FOREIGN % (YEARS) (YEARS) DOMESTIC FOREIGN
THERMAL PLANT CAPITAL COSTS
V-CC 318.0 477.0 11.92 3.00 25. 0.0 0.0
VLG1 594.0 891.0 19.20 5.00 25. 0.0 0.0
VLG2 544.0 817.0 19.20 5.00 25. 0.0 0.0
VCOA 495.0 743.0 19.20 5.00 25. 0.0 0.0
NUCL 730.0 1703.0 26.00 7.00 30. 0.0 0.0
HYD1 - HYDRO PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS, PROJECT LIFE: 50.
1 841.0 841.0 22.67 6.00
2 970.0 970.0 22.67 6.00
HYD2 - HYDRO PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS, PROJECT LIFE: 50.
1 742.0 742.0 19.20 5.00
2 866.0 866.0 19.20 5.00

PAGE 45
DYNPRO
ECONOMIC PARAMETERS AND CONSTRAINTS
ALL COSTS WILL BE DISCOUNTED TO YEAR : 1998
BASE YEAR FOR ESCALATION CALCULATION IS : 1998
DISCOUNT RATE APPLIED TO ALL DOMESTIC COSTS - %/YR 10.0
DISCOUNT RATE APPLIED TO ALL FOREIGN COSTS - %/YR 10.0
1998 INITIAL VALUES : (XX) = INDEX NUMBER; ( 0) = NO INDEX READ
**************
NAME OF ALTERNATIVES :
V-CC VLG1 VLG2 VCOA NUCL HYD1 HYD2
ESCALATION RATIOS FOR CAPITAL COSTS ( 0)
-----------------------------------
DOMESTIC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FOREIGN 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

PAGE 46

D Y N P R O (CONTD.)
ECONOMIC PARAMETERS AND CONSTRAINTS
1998 INITIAL VALUES : (XX) = INDEX NUMBER; ( 0) = NO INDEX READ
**************
FUEL TYPE: T H E R M A L HYDRO ENERGY
NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** HYD1 HYD2 NOT
SERVED
ESCALATION RATIOS FOR OPERATING COSTS ( 0)
-------------------------------------
DOMESTIC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FOREIGN 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
ESCALATION RATIOS FOR FUEL COSTS ( 0)
--------------------------------
DOMESTIC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
FOREIGN 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
COEFFICIENTS OF ENERGY NOT SERVED COST FUNCTION (11) CF1 CF2 CF3
-----------------------------------------------
($/KWH) 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
PENALTY FACTOR ON FOREIGN EXPENDITURE ( 0) 1.0000
CRITICAL LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY IN % ( 0) 100.0000
DEPRECIATION OPTION (16) : 1 = SINKING FUND

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

227
 PAGE 47

EXPECTED COST OF OPERATION

FUEL COST
DOMESTIC

TYPE OF PLANT: NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** ****

YEAR TOTAL COST BY FUEL TYPE (MILLION $)

1998 280.3 0.0 50.9 136.2 73.2 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1999 334.7 0.0 57.0 130.5 127.5 0.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 352.9 0.0 48.9 137.3 146.5 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2001 351.0 0.0 50.1 136.3 144.4 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2002 364.2 0.0 54.7 131.7 157.5 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2003 365.9 0.0 47.5 137.5 160.6 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2004 364.1 0.0 49.7 135.7 158.6 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2005 355.4 0.0 48.5 132.9 153.8 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2006 352.5 0.0 53.1 127.7 151.4 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2007 348.4 0.0 54.2 127.0 147.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2008 342.2 0.0 53.8 125.2 142.9 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2009 349.8 0.0 81.8 110.6 142.3 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2010 342.3 0.0 79.7 107.6 139.9 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2011 336.2 0.0 79.8 109.7 131.5 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2012 332.3 0.0 73.0 116.0 128.2 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2013 331.4 0.0 69.5 120.7 126.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2014 326.1 0.0 60.0 126.7 124.3 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2015 326.4 0.0 58.8 127.7 124.7 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2016 316.2 0.0 56.9 128.7 115.5 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2017 302.2 0.0 56.4 129.0 101.6 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 2534.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTALS 6774.4 1184.5 2697.3 357.9 0.0 0.0

PAGE 48

EXPECTED COST OF OPERATION

FUEL COST
FOREIGN

TYPE OF PLANT: NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** ****

YEAR TOTAL COST BY FUEL TYPE (MILLION $)

1998 139.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 119.9 0.0 19.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
1999 114.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.1 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 147.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 114.3 0.0 32.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
2001 193.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 111.5 0.0 82.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
2002 330.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 130.6 0.0 199.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
2003 363.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 132.7 0.0 230.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
2004 346.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 133.3 0.0 213.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
2005 385.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.7 131.7 0.0 179.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
2006 364.7 20.1 0.0 0.0 72.9 129.8 0.0 142.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2007 416.1 20.1 0.0 0.0 142.9 128.1 0.0 125.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2008 468.7 20.1 0.0 0.0 211.3 127.0 0.0 110.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
2009 515.8 20.1 0.0 0.0 282.4 127.4 0.0 85.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
2010 574.3 20.1 0.0 0.0 350.6 127.6 0.0 76.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2011 568.4 40.1 0.0 0.0 340.2 123.5 0.0 64.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
2012 665.7 38.4 0.0 0.0 371.4 86.0 0.0 169.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
2013 725.7 38.9 0.0 0.0 439.3 74.2 0.0 173.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
2014 784.1 39.6 0.0 0.0 503.8 80.3 0.0 160.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
2015 792.7 57.9 0.0 0.0 493.9 78.2 0.0 162.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
2016 858.4 59.5 0.0 0.0 559.5 80.5 0.0 158.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
2017 876.0 79.1 0.0 0.0 539.0 76.3 0.0 181.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

453.7 0.0 2211.9 2583.7 0.0

TOTALS 9630.3 0.0 4380.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

228
 PAGE 49

EXPECTED COST OF OPERATION

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE AND ENERGY NOT SERVED (ENS)
DOMESTIC

TYPE OF PLANT: NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** HYD1 HYD2 ENS

YEAR TOTAL COST BY FUEL TYPE (MILLION $)

1998 576.8 0.0 65.2 76.2 37.4 65.5 22.3 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 1.4 289.8
1999 1251.8 0.0 66.7 75.4 69.9 63.6 22.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 1.4 934.3
2000 339.1 0.0 64.8 76.5 74.5 65.0 22.4 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 2.6 7.6
2001 362.2 0.0 65.1 76.6 73.9 64.7 22.4 43.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 2.6 3.0
2002 416.0 0.0 66.7 76.1 77.4 66.4 22.4 93.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 3.3 7.7
2003 423.3 0.0 51.8 77.0 78.2 66.6 22.4 113.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.3 6.4
2004 421.5 0.0 52.3 76.8 77.7 66.7 22.4 110.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 3.3 3.4
2005 451.7 0.0 52.0 76.4 115.1 66.5 22.4 104.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 4.6 1.8
2006 459.8 20.1 53.2 69.3 114.2 66.4 22.4 98.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 4.6 3.3
2007 493.3 20.1 53.5 69.2 150.7 66.2 22.4 95.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 3.8
2008 526.2 20.1 53.3 68.9 186.9 66.1 22.4 92.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 3.6
2009 563.2 20.1 70.3 60.5 224.7 66.2 16.8 88.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.1
2010 597.1 20.1 69.7 60.0 261.2 66.2 16.8 86.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.2
2011 610.5 40.2 69.6 60.3 256.2 65.8 16.8 84.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.6
2012 650.0 40.0 67.3 70.3 281.7 54.6 16.8 103.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.0
2013 687.4 40.1 66.5 80.5 318.3 45.7 16.8 103.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 3.7
2014 719.8 40.1 51.1 93.4 354.0 46.3 16.8 101.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.6
2015 744.8 60.0 50.7 102.7 351.3 46.1 16.8 101.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 3.4
2016 780.2 60.2 50.3 103.0 385.7 46.3 16.8 101.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.7
2017 803.5 80.2 50.0 111.9 377.3 45.9 16.8 105.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.0

461.3 1560.9 1206.9 1657.5 0.0 158.4 1302.1

TOTALS 11878.4 1190.2 3866.2 397.0 0.0 0.0 77.9

PAGE 50

EXPECTED COST OF OPERATION

TOTAL COST
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN

TYPE OF PLANT: NUCL LIG1 LIG2 COAL FOIL GTGO NGAS **** **** **** HYD1 HYD2 ENS

YEAR TOTAL COST BY FUEL TYPE (MILLION $)

1998 996.7 0.0 116.2 212.3 110.5 185.4 42.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 1.4 289.8
1999 1700.8 0.0 123.7 206.0 197.3 162.7 42.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 1.4 934.3
2000 839.0 0.0 113.6 213.8 221.0 179.3 42.6 47.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 2.6 7.6
2001 907.1 0.0 115.2 212.9 218.2 176.3 42.6 125.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 2.6 3.0
2002 1110.7 0.0 121.4 207.8 234.9 197.1 42.6 293.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 3.3 7.7
2003 1152.3 0.0 99.3 214.6 238.8 199.3 42.6 344.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.3 6.4
2004 1132.0 0.0 102.0 212.5 236.2 200.0 42.6 323.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 3.3 3.4
2005 1192.2 0.0 100.5 209.3 342.6 198.3 42.6 284.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 4.6 1.8
2006 1177.1 40.1 106.3 197.1 338.5 196.1 42.6 240.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 4.6 3.3
2007 1257.8 40.1 107.7 196.2 440.6 194.3 42.6 220.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 3.8
2008 1337.0 40.1 107.2 194.1 541.0 193.1 42.6 203.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 3.6
2009 1428.8 40.1 152.1 171.0 649.4 193.6 31.9 174.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.1
2010 1513.7 40.1 149.5 167.6 751.7 193.7 31.9 162.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.2
2011 1515.0 80.3 149.5 170.0 727.9 189.3 31.9 149.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.6
2012 1648.0 78.4 140.3 186.3 781.3 140.6 31.9 272.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.0
2013 1744.5 79.0 136.0 201.1 883.7 119.9 31.9 276.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 3.7
2014 1830.0 79.7 111.1 220.1 982.1 126.5 31.9 261.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.6
2015 1863.9 117.9 109.4 230.4 969.9 124.3 31.9 264.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 3.4
2016 1954.8 119.7 107.2 231.71060.7 126.8 31.9 259.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.7
2017 1981.7 159.3 106.5 240.91017.9 122.2 31.9 286.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 4.6 4.0

915.0 4095.7 3418.8 4241.3 0.0 158.4 1302.1

TOTALS 28283.0 2374.7 10944.3 754.9 0.0 0.0 77.9

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

229
PAGE 51

DOMESTIC CONSTRUCTION COSTS (MILLION $)

YEAR # PLANT 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 SUM

2001 1 V-CC . 16.5 98.5 53.1 . . . . . . . . 168.1

2002 2 V-CC . . 33.0 196.9 106.2 . . . . . . . 336.1
2002 1 VHY1 2.6 10.9 24.6 25.5 8.3 . . . . . . . 71.9
2003 1 V-CC . . . 16.5 98.5 53.1 . . . . . . 168.1
2003 1 VHY2 3.7 9.1 28.1 48.1 32.1 9.0 . . . . . . 130.1
2004 1 VHY3 . 13.7 34.1 105.2 180.5 120.5 33.6 . . . . . 487.6
2005 1 VCOA . . . 8.5 35.2 79.3 82.3 26.6 . . . . 232.0
2005 1 VHY4 . . . 4.9 20.5 46.3 48.0 15.5 . . . . 135.3
2006 1 NUCL . . 16.2 32.4 48.6 64.8 81.0 48.6 32.4 . . . 324.1
2007 1 VCOA . . . . . 8.5 35.2 79.3 82.3 26.6 . . 232.0
2008 1 VCOA . . . . . . 8.5 35.2 79.3 82.3 26.6 . 232.0
2009 1 VLG1 . . . . . . . 4.9 20.4 46.0 47.7 15.4 134.4
2009 1 VCOA . . . . . . . 8.5 35.2 79.3 82.3 26.6 232.0

END TOTAL 6.3 234.4 529.9 288.6 290.6 313.8

50.3 491.3 381.4 234.9 318.1 288.5

PAGE 52

DOMESTIC CONSTRUCTION COSTS (MILLION $) (CONTD.)

YEAR # PLANT 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SUM

2010 1 VCOA . 8.5 35.2 79.3 82.3 26.6 . . . . . . 232.0

2011 1 NUCL 16.2 32.4 48.6 64.8 81.0 48.6 32.4 . . . . . 324.1
2012 1 VLG2 . . . 4.5 18.7 42.1 43.7 14.1 . . . . 123.1
2012 1 VCOA . . . 8.5 35.2 79.3 82.3 26.6 . . . . 232.0
2013 1 VLG2 . . . . 4.5 18.7 42.1 43.7 14.1 . . . 123.1
2013 1 VCOA . . . . 8.5 35.2 79.3 82.3 26.6 . . . 232.0
2014 2 VLG2 . . . . . 9.0 37.3 84.2 87.4 28.2 . . 246.1
2014 1 VCOA . . . . . 8.5 35.2 79.3 82.3 26.6 . . 232.0
2015 1 VLG2 . . . . . . 4.5 18.7 42.1 43.7 14.1 . 123.1
2015 1 NUCL . . . . 16.2 32.4 48.6 64.8 81.0 48.6 32.4 . 324.1
2016 1 VCOA . . . . . . . 8.5 35.2 79.3 82.3 26.6 232.0

END TOTAL 234.9 318.1 288.5 421.8 421.9 252.0

290.6 313.8 300.4 454.7 310.0 118.9

PAGE 53

DOMESTIC CONSTRUCTION COSTS (MILLION $) (CONTD.)

YEAR # PLANT 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 SUM

2017 1 VLG2 . . 4.5 18.7 42.1 43.7 14.1 123.1

2017 1 NUCL 16.2 32.4 48.6 64.8 81.0 48.6 32.4 324.1

END TOTAL 421.8 421.9 252.0 46.5

454.7 310.0 118.9 5754.2

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

230
PAGE 54

FOREIGN CONSTRUCTION COSTS (MILLION $)

YEAR # PLANT 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 SUM

2001 1 V-CC . 24.7 147.7 79.6 . . . . . . . . 252.1

2002 2 V-CC . . 49.5 295.4 159.3 . . . . . . . 504.2
2002 1 VHY1 2.6 10.9 24.6 25.5 8.3 . . . . . . . 71.9
2003 1 V-CC . . . 24.7 147.7 79.6 . . . . . . 252.1
2003 1 VHY2 3.7 9.1 28.1 48.1 32.1 9.0 . . . . . . 130.1
2004 1 VHY3 . 13.7 34.1 105.2 180.5 120.5 33.6 . . . . . 487.6
2005 1 VCOA . . . 12.7 52.8 119.1 123.6 40.0 . . . . 348.2
2005 1 VHY4 . . . 4.9 20.5 46.3 48.0 15.5 . . . . 135.3
2006 1 NUCL . . 37.8 37.8 75.6 113.4 226.8 189.0 75.6 . . . 756.1
2007 1 VCOA . . . . . 12.7 52.8 119.1 123.6 40.0 . . 348.2
2008 1 VCOA . . . . . . 12.7 52.8 119.1 123.6 40.0 . 348.2
2009 1 VLG1 . . . . . . . 7.4 30.6 68.9 71.6 23.1 201.6
2009 1 VCOA . . . . . . . 12.7 52.8 119.1 123.6 40.0 348.2

END TOTAL 6.3 321.8 676.8 497.6 452.3 487.1

58.5 634.2 500.6 474.3 480.1 551.7

PAGE 55

FOREIGN CONSTRUCTION COSTS (MILLION $) (CONTD.)

YEAR # PLANT 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SUM

2010 1 VCOA . 12.7 52.8 119.1 123.6 40.0 . . . . . . 348.2

2011 1 NUCL 37.8 37.8 75.6 113.4 226.8 189.0 75.6 . . . . . 756.1
2012 1 VLG2 . . . 6.7 28.0 63.2 65.6 21.2 . . . . 184.8
2012 1 VCOA . . . 12.7 52.8 119.1 123.6 40.0 . . . . 348.2
2013 1 VLG2 . . . . 6.7 28.0 63.2 65.6 21.2 . . . 184.8
2013 1 VCOA . . . . 12.7 52.8 119.1 123.6 40.0 . . . 348.2
2014 2 VLG2 . . . . . 13.5 56.1 126.4 131.2 42.4 . . 369.7
2014 1 VCOA . . . . . 12.7 52.8 119.1 123.6 40.0 . . 348.2
2015 1 VLG2 . . . . . . 6.7 28.0 63.2 65.6 21.2 . 184.8
2015 1 NUCL . . . . 37.8 37.8 75.6 113.4 226.8 189.0 75.6 . 756.1
2016 1 VCOA . . . . . . . 12.7 52.8 119.1 123.6 40.0 348.2

END TOTAL 474.3 480.1 551.7 676.2 741.3 510.5

452.3 487.1 556.2 687.9 597.6 294.6

PAGE 56

FOREIGN CONSTRUCTION COSTS (MILLION $) (CONTD.)

YEAR # PLANT 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 SUM
2017 1 VLG2 . . 6.7 28.0 63.2 65.6 21.2 184.8
2017 1 NUCL 37.8 37.8 75.6 113.4 226.8 189.0 75.6 756.1
END TOTAL 676.2 741.3 510.5 96.8
687.9 597.6 294.6 9302.2

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

231
PAGE 57

DOMESTIC INT. DURING CONSTR. (MILLION $)

YEAR # PLANT 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 SUM

2001 1 V-CC . 0.8 6.6 14.8 . . . . . . . . 22.2

2002 2 V-CC . . 1.6 13.1 29.7 . . . . . . . 44.5
2002 1 VHY1 0.1 0.8 2.7 5.4 7.7 . . . . . . . 16.7
2003 1 V-CC . . . 0.8 6.6 14.8 . . . . . . 22.2
2003 1 VHY2 0.2 0.8 2.8 6.8 11.5 14.8 . . . . . . 36.9
2004 1 VHY3 . 0.7 3.1 10.3 25.6 43.3 55.3 . . . . . 138.3
2005 1 VCOA . . . 0.4 2.6 8.6 17.5 24.8 . . . . 53.9
2005 1 VHY4 . . . 0.2 1.5 5.0 10.2 14.4 . . . . 31.4
2006 1 NUCL . . 0.8 3.3 7.7 14.1 22.8 31.6 38.8 . . . 119.0
2007 1 VCOA . . . . . 0.4 2.6 8.6 17.5 24.8 . . 53.9
2008 1 VCOA . . . . . . 0.4 2.6 8.6 17.5 24.8 . 53.9
2009 1 VLG1 . . . . . . . 0.2 1.5 5.0 10.1 14.3 31.2
2009 1 VCOA . . . . . . . 0.4 2.6 8.6 17.5 24.8 53.9

END TOTAL 0.3 17.5 92.9 108.9 72.7 75.7

3.1 55.4 100.9 83.4 66.1 84.8

PAGE 58

DOMESTIC INT. DURING CONSTR. (MILLION $) (CONTD.)

YEAR # PLANT 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SUM

2010 1 VCOA . 0.4 2.6 8.6 17.5 24.8 . . . . . . 53.9

2011 1 NUCL 0.8 3.3 7.7 14.1 22.8 31.6 38.8 . . . . . 119.0
2012 1 VLG2 . . . 0.2 1.4 4.5 9.3 13.1 . . . . 28.6
2012 1 VCOA . . . 0.4 2.6 8.6 17.5 24.8 . . . . 53.9
2013 1 VLG2 . . . . 0.2 1.4 4.5 9.3 13.1 . . . 28.6
2013 1 VCOA . . . . 0.4 2.6 8.6 17.5 24.8 . . . 53.9
2014 2 VLG2 . . . . . 0.4 2.8 9.1 18.6 26.3 . . 57.2
2014 1 VCOA . . . . . 0.4 2.6 8.6 17.5 24.8 . . 53.9
2015 1 VLG2 . . . . . . 0.2 1.4 4.5 9.3 13.1 . 28.6
2015 1 NUCL . . . . 0.8 3.3 7.7 14.1 22.8 31.6 38.8 . 119.0
2016 1 VCOA . . . . . . . 0.4 2.6 8.6 17.5 24.8 53.9

END TOTAL 83.4 66.1 84.8 92.8 111.8 96.8

72.7 75.7 77.6 101.6 115.9 65.6

PAGE 59

DOMESTIC INT. DURING CONSTR. (MILLION $) (CONTD.)

YEAR # PLANT 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 SUM
2017 1 VLG2 . . 0.2 1.4 4.5 9.3 13.1 28.6
2017 1 NUCL 0.8 3.3 7.7 14.1 22.8 31.6 38.8 119.0
END TOTAL 92.8 111.8 96.8 51.9
101.6 115.9 65.6 1475.7

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

232
PAGE 60

FOREIGN INT. DURING CONSTR. (MILLION $)

YEAR # PLANT 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 SUM
2001 1 V-CC . 1.2 9.9 22.3 . . . . . . . . 33.3
2002 2 V-CC . . 2.4 19.7 44.5 . . . . . . . 66.7
2002 1 VHY1 0.1 0.8 2.7 5.4 7.7 . . . . . . . 16.7
2003 1 V-CC . . . 1.2 9.9 22.3 . . . . . . 33.3
2003 1 VHY2 0.2 0.8 2.8 6.8 11.5 14.8 . . . . . . 36.9
2004 1 VHY3 . 0.7 3.1 10.3 25.6 43.3 55.3 . . . . . 138.3
2005 1 VCOA . . . 0.6 3.9 12.9 26.3 37.2 . . . . 80.9
2005 1 VHY4 . . . 0.2 1.5 5.0 10.2 14.4 . . . . 31.4
2006 1 NUCL . . 1.9 5.8 12.0 22.7 41.9 66.9 86.9 . . . 238.0
2007 1 VCOA . . . . . 0.6 3.9 12.9 26.3 37.2 . . 80.9
2008 1 VCOA . . . . . . 0.6 3.9 12.9 26.3 37.2 . 80.9
2009 1 VLG1 . . . . . . . 0.4 2.3 7.4 15.2 21.5 46.8
2009 1 VCOA . . . . . . . 0.6 3.9 12.9 26.3 37.2 80.9

END TOTAL 0.3 22.7 116.7 138.3 138.7 115.2

3.5 72.5 121.5 138.1 99.7 135.7

PAGE 61

FOREIGN INT. DURING CONSTR. (MILLION $) (CONTD.)

YEAR # PLANT 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SUM
2010 1 VCOA . 0.6 3.9 12.9 26.3 37.2 . . . . . . 80.9
2011 1 NUCL 1.9 5.8 12.0 22.7 41.9 66.9 86.9 . . . . . 238.0
2012 1 VLG2 . . . 0.3 2.1 6.8 14.0 19.7 . . . . 42.9
2012 1 VCOA . . . 0.6 3.9 12.9 26.3 37.2 . . . . 80.9
2013 1 VLG2 . . . . 0.3 2.1 6.8 14.0 19.7 . . . 42.9
2013 1 VCOA . . . . 0.6 3.9 12.9 26.3 37.2 . . . 80.9
2014 2 VLG2 . . . . . 0.7 4.2 13.7 27.9 39.5 . . 85.9
2014 1 VCOA . . . . . 0.6 3.9 12.9 26.3 37.2 . . 80.9
2015 1 VLG2 . . . . . . 0.3 2.1 6.8 14.0 19.7 . 42.9
2015 1 NUCL . . . . 1.9 5.8 12.0 22.7 41.9 66.9 86.9 . 238.0
2016 1 VCOA . . . . . . . 0.6 3.9 12.9 26.3 37.2 80.9
END TOTAL 138.1 99.7 135.7 169.2 176.1 181.6
138.7 115.2 136.9 154.9 195.1 118.0

PAGE 62

FOREIGN INT. DURING CONSTR. (MILLION $) (CONTD.)

YEAR # PLANT 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 SUM
2017 1 VLG2 . . 0.3 2.1 6.8 14.0 19.7 42.9
2017 1 NUCL 1.9 5.8 12.0 22.7 41.9 66.9 86.9 238.0
END TOTAL 169.2 176.1 181.6 106.6
154.9 195.1 118.0 2341.1

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

233
PAGE 63

DOMESTIC CONSTRUCTION & IDC (MILLION $)

YEAR # PLANT 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 SUM
2001 1 V-CC . 17.3 105.0 67.9 . . . . . . . . 190.3
2002 2 V-CC . . 34.6 210.1 135.9 . . . . . . . 380.6
2002 1 VHY1 2.8 11.7 27.3 31.0 15.9 . . . . . . . 88.7
2003 1 V-CC . . . 17.3 105.0 67.9 . . . . . . 190.3
2003 1 VHY2 3.8 9.9 30.8 55.0 43.7 23.7 . . . . . . 167.0
2004 1 VHY3 . 14.4 37.2 115.6 206.1 163.7 88.9 . . . . . 625.9
2005 1 VCOA . . . 8.9 37.8 87.9 99.9 51.4 . . . . 285.9
2005 1 VHY4 . . . 5.2 22.1 51.3 58.3 30.0 . . . . 166.8
2006 1 NUCL . . 17.0 35.7 56.3 78.9 103.8 80.2 71.2 . . . 443.1
2007 1 VCOA . . . . . 8.9 37.8 87.9 99.9 51.4 . . 285.9
2008 1 VCOA . . . . . . 8.9 37.8 87.9 99.9 51.4 . 285.9
2009 1 VLG1 . . . . . . . 5.1 21.9 50.9 57.8 29.8 165.6
2009 1 VCOA . . . . . . . 8.9 37.8 87.9 99.9 51.4 285.9
END TOTAL 6.6 252.0 622.7 397.5 363.3 389.5
53.4 546.6 482.4 318.3 384.2 373.3

PAGE 64

DOMESTIC CONSTRUCTION & IDC (MILLION $) (CONTD.)

YEAR # PLANT 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SUM
2010 1 VCOA . 8.9 37.8 87.9 99.9 51.4 . . . . . . 285.9
2011 1 NUCL 17.0 35.7 56.3 78.9 103.8 80.2 71.2 . . . . . 443.1
2012 1 VLG2 . . . 4.7 20.1 46.6 53.0 27.3 . . . . 151.7
2012 1 VCOA . . . 8.9 37.8 87.9 99.9 51.4 . . . . 285.9
2013 1 VLG2 . . . . 4.7 20.1 46.6 53.0 27.3 . . . 151.7
2013 1 VCOA . . . . 8.9 37.8 87.9 99.9 51.4 . . . 285.9
2014 2 VLG2 . . . . . 9.4 40.1 93.3 106.0 54.5 . . 303.3
2014 1 VCOA . . . . . 8.9 37.8 87.9 99.9 51.4 . . 285.9
2015 1 VLG2 . . . . . . 4.7 20.1 46.6 53.0 27.3 . 151.7
2015 1 NUCL . . . . 17.0 35.7 56.3 78.9 103.8 80.2 71.2 . 443.1
2016 1 VCOA . . . . . . . 8.9 37.8 87.9 99.9 51.4 285.9
END TOTAL 318.3 384.2 373.3 514.5 533.7 348.8
363.3 389.5 378.0 556.2 425.9 184.5

PAGE 65

DOMESTIC CONSTRUCTION & IDC (MILLION $) (CONTD.)

YEAR # PLANT 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 SUM
2017 1 VLG2 . . 4.7 20.1 46.6 53.0 27.3 151.7
2017 1 NUCL 17.0 35.7 56.3 78.9 103.8 80.2 71.2 443.1
END TOTAL 514.5 533.7 348.8 98.5
556.2 425.9 184.5 7230.0

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

234
 QBHF 77
GPSFJHO DPOTU SV DU JPO ' JED ) NJMMJPO % *
Z FBS $ QMBOU 2::8 2::9 [Link] 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 TV N
3112 2 W .DD / 37/1 268/7 212/: / / / / / / / / 396/5
3113 3 W .DD / / 62/: 426/2 314/9 / / / / / / / 681/:
3113 2 W IZ 2 3/9 22/8 38/4 42/1 26/: / / / / / / / 99/8
3114 2 W .DD / / / 37/1 268/7 212/: / / / / / / 396/5
3114 2 W IZ 3 4/9 :/: 41/9 66/1 54/8 34/8 / / / / / / 278/1
3115 2 W IZ 4 / 25/5 48/3 226/7 317/2 274/8 99/: / / / / / 736/:
3116 2 W DPB / / / 24/4 67/9 243/1 25:/: 88/2 / / / / 53:/2
3116 2 W IZ 5 / / / 6/3 33/2 62/4 69/4 41/1 / / / / 277/9
3117 2 OV DM / / 4:/8 54/7 98/8 247/2 379/8 366/: 273/6 / / / ::5/3
3118 2 W DPB / / / / / 24/4 67/9 243/1 25:/: 88/2 / / 53:/2
3119 2 W DPB / / / / / / 24/4 67/9 243/1 25:/: 88/2 / 53:/2
311: 2 W MH2 / / / / / / / 8/8 43/: 87/5 97/9 55/7 359/5
311: 2 W DPB / / / / / / / 24/4 67/9 243/1 25:/: 88/2 53:/2
FOE U PU BM 7/7 455/6 8:4/6 746/: 6:1/: 713/4
73/1 817/8 733/1 723/5 68:/9 798/4

QBHF 78
GPSFJHO DPOTU SV DU JPO ' JED ) NJMMJPO % * ) DPOU E/*
Z FBS $ QMBOU 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 311: 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 TV N
3121 2 W DPB / 24/4 67/9 243/1 25:/: 88/2 / / / / / / 53:/2
3122 2 OV DM 4:/8 54/7 98/8 247/2 379/8 366/: 273/6 / / / / / ::5/3
3123 2 W MH3 / / / 8/2 41/2 81/2 8:/7 51/: / / / / 338/9
3123 2 W DPB / / / 24/4 67/9 243/1 25:/: 88/2 / / / / 53:/2
3124 2 W MH3 / / / / 8/2 41/2 81/2 8:/7 51/: / / / 338/9
3124 2 W DPB / / / / 24/4 67/9 243/1 25:/: 88/2 / / / 53:/2
3125 3 W MH3 / / / / / 25/3 71/4 251/2 26:/2 92/: / / 566/6
3125 2 W DPB / / / / / 24/4 67/9 243/1 25:/: 88/2 / / 53:/2
3126 2 W MH3 / / / / / / 8/2 41/2 81/2 8:/7 51/: / 338/9
3126 2 OV DM / / / / 4:/8 54/7 98/8 247/2 379/8 366/: 273/6 / ::5/3
3127 2 W DPB / / / / / / / 24/4 67/9 243/1 25:/: 88/2 53:/2
FOE U PU BM 723/5 68:/9 798/4 956/5 :28/4 7:3/2
6:1/: 713/4 7:4/2 953/9 8:3/8 523/7

QBHF 79
GPSFJHO DPOTU SV DU JPO ' JED ) NJMMJPO % * ) DPOU E/*

Z FBS $ QMBOU 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 3127 TV N

3128 2 W MH3 / / 8/2 41/2 81/2 8:/7 51/: 338/9
3128 2 OV DM 4:/8 54/7 98/8 247/2 379/8 366/: 273/6 ::5/3
FOE U PU BM 956/5 :28/4 7:3/2 314/5
953/9 8:3/8 523/7 22754/4

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

235
 PAGE 69
CAPITAL CASH FLOW SUMMARY OF CANDIDATES (MILLION $)
NON-DEPRECIABLE CONSTRUCTION IDC
YEAR DOM. FOR. TOTAL DOM. FOR. TOTAL DOM. FOR. TOTAL GR. TOT.
1997 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.29 6.29 12.59 0.31 0.31 0.62 13.21
1998 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.26 58.50 108.76 3.13 3.54 6.67 115.43
1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 234.45 321.78 556.22 17.53 22.69 40.22 596.44
2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 491.25 634.15 1125.40 55.36 72.50 127.86 1253.26
2001 0.00 0.00 0.00 529.85 676.81 1206.66 92.89 116.72 209.61 1416.27
2002 0.00 0.00 0.00 381.43 500.57 882.01 100.94 121.45 222.39 1104.40
2003 0.00 0.00 0.00 288.65 497.59 786.24 108.89 138.27 247.16 1033.40
2004 0.00 0.00 0.00 234.89 474.32 709.21 83.41 138.12 221.53 930.74
2005 0.00 0.00 0.00 290.57 452.25 742.82 72.71 138.70 211.41 954.24
2006 0.00 0.00 0.00 318.09 480.05 798.15 66.09 99.74 165.83 963.98
2007 0.00 0.00 0.00 313.80 487.09 800.89 75.71 115.16 190.87 991.76
2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 288.45 551.67 840.12 84.83 135.66 220.49 1060.61
2009 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.41 556.20 856.61 77.60 136.86 214.47 1071.08
2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 421.75 676.24 1098.00 92.78 169.17 261.95 1359.95
2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 454.69 687.91 1142.60 101.55 154.87 256.42 1399.02
2012 0.00 0.00 0.00 421.90 741.25 1163.15 111.81 176.08 287.89 1451.05
2013 0.00 0.00 0.00 310.01 597.58 907.60 115.93 195.07 311.00 1218.59
2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 252.01 510.49 762.50 96.75 181.59 278.34 1040.84
2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 118.93 294.60 413.53 65.61 117.99 183.60 597.12
2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.53 96.82 143.36 51.92 106.61 158.53 301.89
DOM. 0.00 5754.24 1475.75
FOREIGN 0.00 9302.18 2341.09
TOTAL 0.00 15056.42 3816.84 18873.25

PAGE 70
CAPITAL CASH FLOW SUMMARY OF DECIDED SYSTEM (MILLION $)
NON-DEPRECIABLE DEPRECIABLE IDC
YEAR DOM. FOR. TOTAL DOM. FOR. TOTAL DOM. FOR. TOTAL GR. TOT.
1995 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.60 6.30 18.90 1.28 0.63 1.91 20.81
1996 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.50 18.90 50.40 4.53 2.58 7.10 57.50
1997 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.80 31.50 69.30 8.75 5.99 14.74 84.04
1998 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.50 44.10 75.60 12.81 11.00 23.81 99.41
1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.60 25.20 37.80 15.33 14.62 29.95 67.75
DOM. 0.00 126.00 42.70
FOREIGN 0.00 126.00 34.80
TOTAL 0.00 252.00 77.50 329.50

PAGE 71
GLOBAL CAPITAL CASH FLOW SUMMARY (MILLION $)
NON-DEPRECIABLE DEPRECIABLE IDC
YEAR DOM. FOR. TOTAL DOM. FOR. TOTAL DOM. FOR. TOTAL GR. TOT.
1995 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.60 6.30 18.90 1.28 0.63 1.91 20.81
1996 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.50 18.90 50.40 4.53 2.58 7.10 57.50
1997 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.09 37.79 81.89 9.06 6.30 15.36 97.25
1998 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.76 102.60 184.36 15.94 14.53 30.48 214.84
1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 247.05 346.98 594.02 32.86 37.31 70.16 664.19
2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 491.25 634.15 1125.40 55.36 72.50 127.86 1253.26
2001 0.00 0.00 0.00 529.85 676.81 1206.66 92.89 116.72 209.61 1416.27
2002 0.00 0.00 0.00 381.43 500.57 882.01 100.94 121.45 222.39 1104.40
2003 0.00 0.00 0.00 288.65 497.59 786.24 108.89 138.27 247.16 1033.40
2004 0.00 0.00 0.00 234.89 474.32 709.21 83.41 138.12 221.53 930.74
2005 0.00 0.00 0.00 290.57 452.25 742.82 72.71 138.70 211.41 954.24
2006 0.00 0.00 0.00 318.09 480.05 798.15 66.09 99.74 165.83 963.98
2007 0.00 0.00 0.00 313.80 487.09 800.89 75.71 115.16 190.87 991.76
2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 288.45 551.67 840.12 84.83 135.66 220.49 1060.61
2009 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.41 556.20 856.61 77.60 136.86 214.47 1071.08
2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 421.75 676.24 1098.00 92.78 169.17 261.95 1359.95
2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 454.69 687.91 1142.60 101.55 154.87 256.42 1399.02
2012 0.00 0.00 0.00 421.90 741.25 1163.15 111.81 176.08 287.89 1451.05
2013 0.00 0.00 0.00 310.01 597.58 907.60 115.93 195.07 311.00 1218.59
2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 252.01 510.49 762.50 96.75 181.59 278.34 1040.84
2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 118.93 294.60 413.53 65.61 117.99 183.60 597.12
2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.53 96.82 143.36 51.92 106.61 158.53 301.89
DOM. 0.00 5880.24 1518.45
FOREIGN 0.00 9428.18 2375.89
TOTAL 0.00 15308.42 3894.34 19202.75

Figure 9.7. REPROBAT printout for the optimal solution of DEMOCASE (cont.).

236
9.4. Special remarks on the REPROBAT capabilities

Table 1.1 summarises the principal capabilities of the WASP-IV code. They concern mainly
the abilities of Modules 1 to 6 and the limits to carry out a planning study for an electric
power system. In principle, the same limits are also applicable for REPROBAT with the
following exception. Construction time of decided (committed) plants to be specified in type-
7a data records of REPROBAT can extend up to 10 years. In addition, only the costs of up to
twenty thermal units and hydro/P-S projects of the decided system can be considered in the
REPROBAT report.

These limitations arise from the capability of REPROBAT to handle and store information on
the temporary working files.

Concerning the cash flow on construction costs reported by REPROBAT for the expansion
candidates added by the DYNPRO solution (see pages 51-68 of Fig. 9.7), this information is
calculated by the program using the plant data on capital cost given in DYNPRO. The yearly
expenditures are then calculated based on either a cost distribution with time provided by the
user or an internal cost distribution function (see below) used as default.

For the default option, the program calculates first the total investment cost of the plant as:
unitary investment cost of the plant ($/kW) times plant size (MW) times 1000. Then, this is
separated into pure construction cost and IDC cost deducted from the total cost, based on the
percentage of IDC specified in DYNPRO for this plant. The distribution of these costs
(domestic and foreign components separately) over the construction period of the plant is
carried out by REPROBAT assuming an "S" curve shape for the function relating
expenditures to time as shown in Figure 9.8. The distribution of IDC requires in addition the
specification of an interest rate. This is assumed by REPROBAT to be equal to the discount
rate on capital costs used in DYNPRO. Table 9.2 gives the resulting IDC percentages for
different interest rates and construction periods as calculated using the expenditure versus
time function of Figure 9.8. The values shown in Table 9.2 are to be used in the DYNPRO
run for the case being studied if it is required that the REPROBAT report gives the correct
distribution between pure construction and IDC costs.

Alternatively, the user may specify the annual distribution (%) of the pure construction costs
over the years of the construction period of the plant and the program will simply calculate
the corresponding annual IDC like shown in Table 9.3 (see use of type-8 records).

In each case, the total investment cost to be considered is escalated to the year of start of
operation of the plant using the cost escalation information provided in the DYNPRO run.

If for the case under study, the user provides capital cost estimates of the expansion
alternatives not calculated under the same assumptions above-mentioned and if these data are
used in DYNPRO, it will be necessary to provide the corresponding cost distribution data to
REPROBAT to guarantee consistency of the report.

237
 100

90

80

70
C, COST (%)

60

50

40
YS, YEAR OF START YO, YEAR OF COMM.
OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATION
30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

T, TIME (%)

T = f(C ) = a0 + a1 * C + a2 * C2 + a3 * C3 + a4 * C4 + a5 * C5 + a6 *
C + a 7 * C7
6

a0 = +0.72954 a4 = -7.36442 * 10-4

a1 = +7.17832 a5 = +1.00715 * 10-5

a2 = -6.16794 * 10-1 a6 = -7.02449 * 10-8

a3 = +2.91329 * 10-2 a7 = +1.95903 * 10-10

Figure 9.8. Plant capital investment expenditure against time (“S” curve shape).

It should be noticed that the optimization process is not affected since DYNPRO only
considers total construction cost of the plants being added. If the estimates of pure
construction cost for a particular expansion candidate are known but its distribution along the

238
construction period is not available, the user may proceed with either of the following
approaches16:

a) Use of the "S" curve approximation: In this case, for the REPROBAT results to be
consistent with the DYNPRO input data, it would be necessary that the user calculates the
total capital investment cost using the values of Table 9.3. To do so, the percentage of IDC on
Table 9.3 (for the respective construction period and interest rate considered) must be added
to the pure construction cost data to calculate the actual construction cost to be given in
DYNPRO, and the corresponding %IDC must be taken from Table 9.2. In effect Tables 9.2
and 9.3 are interrelated as follows:

% IDC ( Table9.3)
= % IDC ( Table9.2)
% IDC (Table9.3)
. +[
10 ]
100.0

As an example, let us assume that the estimate of pure construction cost for a 1000 MW plant
is 1000 x 106 $; a 5-years construction period and that the applicable interest rate is 11%.
From Table 9.3, the percentage of IDC cost to be added to estimates of pure construction
costs is 26.47% for the construction period and the interest rate assumed. Thus, the total
construction cost and respective %IDC to be used for this plant in DYNPRO are:

. + 0.2647)$
1000 * 10 6 * (10
Construction Cost = = 1264.7$ / kW
1000 * 10 3 kW

26.47
% IDC = 20.93(Table9.2) =
. + 0.2647)
(10

b) User-defined distribution: In this case, the user can estimate the total IDC for the given
construction period and interest rate based on experience for similar projects already in
operation or under construction. Then, calculate the total investment cost of the unit (or
hydro/P-S project) and give this as input data to DYNPRO. Prepare a fixed expansion run of
CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO in which the given plant or project is added in a given year.
Then run REPROBAT giving as input data an estimated capital cost distribution versus time
for the plant and review the results to ensure that the total calculated IDC are in agreement
with the specified values in DYNPRO.

Alternatively, the user can calculate the annual (and total) IDC corresponding to a given
annual distribution of costs following the same procedure as the one that is used in
REPROBAT.

16
Note that this process should be done during the phase of Fixed Expansion Runs of WASP-IV for the case study, that is
during the phase of definition of the data that will be retained for the overall expansion runs.

239
 Table 9.2 Interest during construction (IDC) in percent of total construction cost (Input of DYNPRO)
Construction Interest Rate
5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%
1.0 2.08 2.49 2.90 3.31 3.71 4.11 4.51 4.90 5.30 5.69 6.08
1.5 3.11 3.72 4.33 4.93 5.52 6.11 6.70 7.28 7.86 8.43 9.00
2.0 4.13 4.94 5.74 6.52 7.31 8.08 8.85 9.61 10.37 11.11 11.85
2.5 5.15 6.14 7.13 8.10 9.07 10.02 10.96 11.89 12.82 13.73 14.63
3.0 6.15 7.33 8.50 9.66 10.80 11.92 13.03 14.13 15.21 16.28 17.34
3.5 7.14 8.51 9.86 11.19 12.50 13.79 15.06 16.32 17.56 18.77 19.98
4.0 8.13 9.68 11.20 12.70 14.18 15.63 17.06 18.46 19.85 21.21 22.54
4.5 9.11 10.83 12.53 14.19 15.83 17.44 19.01 20.56 22.08 23.58 25.05
5.0 10.08 11.98 13.84 15.67 17.46 19.21 20.93 22.62 24.27 25.89 27.48
5.5 11.04 13.11 15.13 17.12 19.06 20.96 22.81 24.63 26.41 28.15 29.85
6.0 11.99 14.23 16.41 18.55 20.63 22.67 24.66 26.60 28.50 30.35 32.16
6.5 12.94 15.33 17.68 19.96 22.18 24.35 26.47 28.53 30.54 32.49 34.40
7.0 13.87 16.43 18.92 21.35 23.71 26.00 28.24 30.41 32.53 34.58 36.58
7.5 14.80 17.52 20.15 22.72 25.21 27.63 29.98 32.26 34.47 36.62 38.71
8.0 15.72 18.59 21.37 24.07 26.69 29.22 31.68 34.06 36.37 38.61 40.77
8.5 16.63 19.65 22.57 25.40 28.14 30.79 33.35 35.83 38.22 40.54 42.78
9.0 17.54 20.70 23.76 26.71 29.57 32.32 34.98 37.55 40.03 42.42 44.73
9.5 18.43 21.74 24.93 28.01 30.97 33.83 36.59 39.24 41.80 44.26 46.62
10.0 19.32 22.77 26.09 29.28 32.36 35.31 38.16 40.89 43.52 46.04 48.46

240
Table 9.3 Interest during construction (IDC) in percent of pure construction cost
Construction Interest Rate

Period

(Years)

5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%

1.0 2.13 2.56 2.99 3.42 3.85 4.29 4.72 5.16 5.59 6.03 6.47
1.5 3.21 3.87 4.52 5.18 5.84 6.51 7.18 7.85 8.53 9.21 9.89

2.0 4.31 5.20 6.08 6.98 7.88 8.79 9.71 10.63 11.56 12.50 13.45
2.5 5.43 6.54 7.67 8.82 9.97 11.13 12.31 13.50 14.70 15.91 17.14
3.0 6.55 7.91 9.29 10.69 12.10 13.54 14.99 16.45 17.94 19.45 20.98
3.5 7.69 9.30 10.94 12.60 14.29 16.00 17.74 19.50 21.29 23.11 24.96

4.0 8.85 10.72 12.62 14.55 16.52 18.53 20.57 22.64 24.76 26.91 29.11
4.5 10.02 12.15 14.32 16.54 18.81 21.12 23.48 25.89 28.34 30.85 33.41
5.0 11.21 13.61 16.06 18.58 21.15 23.78 26.47 29.23 32.05 34.94 37.89

5.5 12.41 15.09 17.83 20.65 23.54 26.51 29.55 32.68 35.89 39.18 42.55
6.0 13.63 16.59 19.64 22.77 25.99 29.31 32.73 36.24 39.85 43.57 47.40
6.5 14.86 18.11 21.47 24.93 28.50 32.19 35.99 39.91 43.96 48.14 52.44
7.0 16.11 19.66 23.34 27.14 31.07 35.14 39.35 43.70 48.21 52.87 57.69

7.5 17.37 21.23 25.24 29.40 33.70 38.17 42.81 47.62 52.61 57.78 63.15
8.0 18.65 22.83 27.18 31.70 36.40 41.29 46.37 51.66 57.16 62.88 68.84
8.5 19.95 24.46 29.15 34.05 39.16 44.48 50.03 55.83 61.87 68.18 74.76
9.0 21.26 26.10 31.16 36.45 41.98 47.76 53.81 60.14 66.75 73.68 80.93

9.5 22.60 27.78 33.21 38.90 44.87 51.13 57.70 64.58 71.81 79.39 87.35
10.0 23.95 29.48 35.30 41.41 47.84 54.59 61.70 69.18 77.04 85.33 94.04

241
 CHAPTER 10. SEARCH FOR OPTIMAL SOLUTION

10.1. Basic information

The running of the WASP-IV modules requires a certain number of input data, which are
essential in the search for an optimal expansion schedule for the power system being studied.
Table 10.1 depicts in a conceptual way the most important data linked to the WASP-IV
modules where either these data have to be input or they have an impact on the results. No
attempt has been made to include in Table 10.1 all the input data and their corresponding
physical units since the full description of each piece of information needed by the WASP-IV
modules is contained in the preceding sections.
It should be stressed here the importance of data preparation for the various WASP-IV
modules, particularly concerning: the load forecast and load seasonal variation; the
hydrological conditions (years of rainfall); the technical and economic characteristics of
thermal, hydroelectric and pumped-storage plants to be included in FIXSYS, and those for the
plants to be used as candidates for system expansion in VARSYS; the construction cost of
these expansion candidates; the discount rate(s) on the various types of expenditure; the
escalation ratios (if any) on capital and operating costs; the loading order of the plants as
required for the simulation of system operation; the acceptable limit for system reliability
(reserve margins and the annual LOLP); external constraints (if any) on environmental
emissions, fuel availability and energy generation by some plants; etc. All these data must be
decided with great care before undertaking a WASP study, since changes introduced later
may imply repeating the whole dynamic optimization process; thus, leading to wasting of
time.
As mentioned in Chapter 3 through Chapter 9, some data are internally checked by the
WASP-IV modules for consistency with data given in other modules, and also to make sure
that the capabilities of the program for storing information (i.e. the dimensions of the
respective variables in the program) are not exceeded (see Chapter 13 for description of the
corresponding checks). However, a large amount of input data is simply read (and used) by
the computer as it appears on the respective data screen. Therefore, it is very important to
check carefully all printouts produced by the WASP-IV modules, especially during the
debugging phase of input data of WASP, treated in the following section.
10.2. Input data validation and debugging: Running a predetermined expansion plan
It is recommended that the input data validation and debugging of the WASP-IV modules be
done running a predetermined expansion plan, in other words, running WASP-IV for an
expansion plan composed of only one configuration of the system for every year in the study
period. Figure 10.1 is a flow chart of this procedure, in which a symbol indicates the
appropriate points for user-machine interaction. Table 10.2 stresses additional points to be
kept in mind when running the various WASP-IV modules for the input data validation and
debugging.
It is important to remember that modules LOADSY and FIXSYS are independent between
each other, so that they can be run in any order, VARSYS must be run after successful
execution of FIXSYS and all first three modules must be run before the first CONGEN run.
Besides, once modules LOADSY, FIXSYS and VARSYS are debugged and found correct,
there is no need to run any of them again, unless inconsistency or incorrectness in the data
were detected when running CONGEN, MERSIM, DYNPRO or REPROBAT.

242
Table 10.1 Most important data for WASP-IV computer runs
TYPE OF DATA LOADSY FIXSYS VARSYS CONGEN MERSIM DYNPRO REPROBAT
LOAD FORECAST
First year of study X X - X X X X
Study period X X - X X X X
Number of periods per year X X X X X X X
Load duration curves X - - - X - -
Maximum demands X - - X X - X
Seasonal multipliers of peak
demands X - - X X - -
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
Number of hydro-conditions - X X - X X X
Probability of hydro-conditions - X X - X - -
Technical data - X X X X - X
Grouping of hydro projects - X X - X - X
Preferred sequences of hydro
projects - - X X - X X
Addition or retirement of projects - X - X X - X
Spinning reserve capabilities - - - - X - -
THERMOELECTRIC UNITS
Technical data - X X X X - X
Fuel types, heat contents - X X - X - X
Maintenance requirements - X X - X - -
Forced outages - X X - X - -
Spinning reserve capabilities - X X - X - -
Addition/retirement of units - X - X X - X
SYSTEM ECONOMICS
L.O. order of thermal plants - X X X X - -
Fuel costs - X X - X X X
O&M (non-fuel) costs - X X - X X X
Capital investment costs - - - - - X X
Interest during construction - - - - - X X
Plant economic life - - - - - X X
Construction periods - - - - - X X
Depreciation option - - - - - X -
Cost of energy-not-served - - - - - X X
Reference date for present
worth calculations - - - - - X -
Reference date for calculation
of cost escalation - - - - - X -
Discount rates - - - - - X X
Escalation rates - - - - - X X
SYSTEM RELIABILITY
Maximum and minimum
reserve margins - - - X - - X
LOLP limits - - - - - X X
Spinning reserve requirements - - - - X - -
Maximum unit size - - X X - - -
ACCURACY OF
COMPUTATION X - - - X - -
Number of Fourier terms

REPORTING OPTIONS X X X X X

243
 Prepare or correct
basic input data

LOAD SYSTEM FIXED SYSTEM VARIABLE SYSTEM

Program Program Program

Report Report Report

Yes Errors No
in reports
?
EXPANSION CONFIGURATION
GENERATOR Program Report
Correct data

New data MERGE/SIMULATE Program

OPTIMIZATION Program Report

Yes

Errors
in reports
Report
?

No

REPORT GENERATOR Report

Program

Repeat for several pre-

determined expansion
plans as explained in
Section 10.3

Beginning of full-scale
optimization process.
Execution of variable
expansion runs.

Figure 10.1. User-computer interaction in running the WASP-IV code for a predetermined
expansion plan (adapted from ORNL 73-7759 RI).

244
Table 10.2. Input data validation and debugging: Running a predetermined expansion plan
STEP MODULE OUTPUT OPTIONS REQUIRED REMARKS
Printing of: First run Last run
LOADSY Fourier coef. Yes No These modules can be
run in any order.
STEP 1 FIXSYS No option - -

VARSYS No option - - To be run after FIXSYS

has been successfully
run.
LOADSY To obtain a handy
output for quick
STEP 2 REPROBAT Report options: FIXSYS reference and check of
the files from LOADSY
VARSYS through VARSYS.

only
To be run after
LOADSY, FIXSYS and
STEP 3 CONGEN FIXSYS and Yes No VARSYS have been
VARSYS files successfully run.
STEP 3A REPROBAT Report option: CONGEN only To document variation
of constraints.
FIXSYS and Yes No To be run after
VARSYS files CONGEN has been
STEP 4 MERSIM successfully run.
Results of Maximum for Intermediate
simulation some years; for all years
intermediate for
other years and
minimum for
remaining years.
VARSYS file Yes No To be run after
MERSIM has been
STEP 5 DYNPRO Listing of the successfully run.
states
considered in Yes No
the run
STEP 6 REMERSIM No printing of Maximum To be run after last
FIXSYS and - output for DYNPRO run.
VARSYS files selected years;
intermediate
for remaining
years.
STEP 7 REPROBAT Full report - Yes To be run after all other
modules have been
successfully run.

Note: REPROBAT can be run after the STEPS 1 or 3 have been successfully completed but the report output
options should obviously cover only those modules already run. To run after STEP 4, it is necessary to run
STEP 6 first.

245
The first step is, thus, to run LOADSY (with the option Extended for printing of Fourier
coefficients), FIXSYS and VARSYS in order to peruse input data and correctness of the
results. See Chapters 3, 4 and 5 for the procedures to prepare the input data files and to revise
the output report files of these modules. Once the user is satisfied with the results, a last run of
these modules (setting in LOADSY the Fourier coefficients printing option to Normal) is
recommended.
An additional comment must be made regarding the option for the load duration curve (LDC)
input data to be used in the LOADSY run(s) for a particular case study. As explained in
Chapter 3, the LDC input data for each period can be given optionally, in polynomial form or
by points of the curve. If the latter option is used, it is recommended that the user revises the
output of LOADSY to check that the energies and load factors calculated by the program
from the input representation point-by-point match the respective values calculated by
LOADSY using the Fourier series approximation to LDC. If these results are too divergent
(difference > 1%), it is suggested to use the polynomial form option for LDC input data. This
requires running first any program which calculates the coefficients of the polynomial
representing the LDC of the periods.
In spite of the above, the use of the point-by-point option is strongly recommended since this
permits a closer representation of the system load duration curve, particularly for the points of
greatest importance, namely the inflexion at the knee of the base load, where generation by
base load plants (the most economic) are to be measured, and the area closer to the peaking
portion, where LOLP and ENS will be determined as well as generation by peaking
(expensive) units are to be calculated.
The second step is to run the REPROBAT module with the output options limited to
LOADSY, FIXSYS and VARSYS in order to make further analysis of the information
contained in their respective files (LOADDUCU-, FIXPLANT-, and [Link]). This
analysis may still reveal that some additional changes are needed in the data supplied to these
modules before proceeding to the next step. See Chapter 9 for preparing the input data for
REPROBAT.
The third step is to run the CONGEN module with a predetermined expansion plan for the
system being studied (see Chapter 6 for preparing the CONGEN input data). The first run of
CONGEN should be done using the maximum output option, i.e. requesting printing of the
FIXSYS and VARSYS files, again to ascertain that these are correct and that they are
properly read by the program.
The step 3A can run the REPROBAT module with the output option for CONGEN to check
[Link] and document the various attempts for an acceptable fixed expansion plan.
Step 4 is to run the MERSIM module following the procedure explained in Chapter 7. The
first MERSIM run should be also executed requesting printing of the FIXSYS and VARSYS
files for the same reasons described above for the first CONGEN run. For this first MERSIM
run, the user should judge in which years of the study period, maximum, intermediate or
minimum outputs of the results of the simulation are necessary for perusal of the correctness
of data and results. The printout of the run ought to be revised very carefully as explained in
Section 7.3.2, and any error in input data corrected and the program re-run before proceeding
to other steps. As a result of this revision, it may be necessary to correct some input data of
the preceding WASP-IV modules (and re-run the applicable module(s)).
Great care should be devoted to input a realistic economic loading order of the plants since
annual operating costs calculated by MERSIM are function of this L.O. If the multiple group-
limitations were imposed on the system, meeting these limitations would result in changes in
the loading order. The impact of these constraints on unit generations should be carefully

246
noted (the detailed information on this will be available in [Link] and
[Link] files). Several runs may be performed to investigate the effect of varying
the number of Fourier terms used in the representation of the inverted load duration curve,
upon the calculation of the system's annual operating costs, LOLP and energy-not-served. A
compromise should be reached between accuracy of the results and the computation time
required to perform the simulations, by selecting as low a number of Fourier terms as deemed
necessary by the user's judgment and experience. A last run in this series would need using
only intermediate output option for all years of study (and without requesting printing of
FIXSYS and VARSYS files) in order to reduce the size of output report file.
Module DYNPRO is run in the fifth step, after MERSIM's last successful run and using the
procedure detailed in Chapter 8. As mentioned before, great care should be exercised in
checking all economic data and constraints given in this module. It is advisable that, before
proceeding to the dynamic optimization phase of the WASP study, the user performs simple
hand calculations to total annual production costs for different capacity factors of the plants
which are to be used as expansion candidates as illustrated in Table 10.3 for a thermal
candidate (NUCL) and a hydro project (VHY3 of HYD1) of DEMOCASE.
For thermal units, calculations are carried out for 0% and 100% of plant capacity factor (all
data for these capacity factors are known). Plotting these two values on a graph the curve of
annual production costs versus plant capacity factor can be approximated to a straight line as
shown in Figure 10.2 for the thermal plants considered as expansion candidates in our sample
problem. A graph such as in Fig. 10.2 (usually called screening curves1) helps the user in
checking whether the plants used as expansion candidates are actually competitive (at least
theoretically, since operating costs are calculated in MERSIM weighing the results for
different hydro-conditions by their respective probabilities). For instance, it can be seen in
Fig. 10.2 that the nuclear plant (NUCL) is more economical than any other thermal candidate
for annual capacity factors greater than 70% (except compared to V-CC, for which it is
economical at capacity factor greater than 90%, but the number of units of V-CC that can be
added are limited due to other physical constraints assumed for this case); coal plants
(VCOA) for capacity factors less than 70%. Break-even points between two plants at a time
can also be determined from Fig. 10.21. In the case of hydro, since the simulation module will
try to make use of all available hydro energy to off-load thermal plants, the representation of
these projects on screening curve becomes a single point (Note that if it were not for this
premise in module MERSIM, the theoretical representation of hydro projects on screening
curve should be also a straight line parallel to the x-axis, since annual production costs are
independent of capacity factors). After plotting the graph for the user's case, obviously those
plants that are not actually competitive for a wide range of capacity factors should be
eliminated from the list of expansion candidates in the VARSYS module. This is also very
important for hydro projects and their respective sequence to be used in VARSYS since the
ranking of these projects must be decided by the user.
Step 6 is to be executed (at least intermediate output for all years) if full scope of REPROBAT
output is wanted. Same input data as for Step 4.
Step 7: Execute REPROBAT to obtain full printout report by activating all/partial output
options.

17
The use of screening curves is described in detail in Section 6.6 of the publication Electric Generating System
Expansion, A Guidebook, IAEA TRS 241, Vienna, 1984.

247
Table 10.3. Example of calculations of total annual production costs using data for
DEMOCASE
I. PLANT DATA

Plant FC O&M DCC NDCC T

Name Size Fuel cost at Fixed Variable Depreciable Non- Life
(MW) f=100% ($/kW-m) ($/MWh) capital depreciable time
($/MWh) cost capital cost (years)
($/kW) ($/kW)
NUCL 600 4.8 2.5 0.50 2432.5 0.0 30
VHY3 650 - 0.55 - 1939.60 - 50
(HYD1)

II. CALCULATIONS OF ANNUAL PRODUCTION COSTS [APC ($/kW-year)]

i x ( NDCC)
(APC )f = [r ]iT x DCC + + 12 x (O& Mfixed ) +
100
f
8.76 x [(FC )f + (O& M variable )f ] x
100

i x (1 + i ) T
[r ]iT = T
(1 + i ) − 1
where:

i = annual interest rate (10% in this case)

f = average annual capacity factor of the plant (in %)

[r] Ti = annual capital recovery factor (levelized annual fixed charge rate)

A. For the VNUC plant:

[r] 30
10% = 0.10608

(APC)f=0% = 0.10608 x 2432.5 + 12 x 2.5 = 288.04 $/kW-year

(APC)f=100% = (APC)f=0% + 8.76 x [4.8 + 0.5] x 1.00 = 334.4 $/kW-year

B. For the VHY3 hydro project:

The annual available energy in the "normal" year (hydro-condition 1 for DEMOCASE)
of this project is 2920 GWh. Thus, its average capacity factor (referred to the installed
capacity, 650 MW in this case) is 51%.

[r] 50
10%
= 0.10086

(APC)f=51% = 0.10086 x 1939.60 + 12 x 0.55 = 202.23 $/kW-year

248
 600.00

500.00

400.00

V-CC
VLG1
$/kW-Yr

VLG2
300.00
VCOA
NUCL

200.00

100.00

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Capacity Factor (%)

Figure 10.2. Screening curves: Annual production costs versus plant capacity factor of expansion candidates for the sample case.

249
10.3. Execution of a series of WASP runs for predetermined expansion plans

As explained in Chapter 6, the computer time requirements for a WASP-IV study are highly
dependent on the total number of configurations generated throughout the dynamic
optimization phase (in the search for the optimal solution for the expansion problem), which
in turn depends greatly on the starting point selected by the user for the full-scale dynamic
optimization phase of his/her study. Thus, after having executed the WASP runs
corresponding to the data validation and debugging of the modules, it is advisable to evaluate
a certain number of predetermined expansion patterns of system development to select a
favorable area to be used as starting point for the dynamic optimization phase, as shown in
Fig. 10.1.

The steps required to execute such series of runs are essentially similar to the ones explained
in Section 10.2 except for the following (these are summarized in Table 10.4): Steps 1 and 2
of Section 10.2 are not required since LOADSY, FIXSYS and VARSYS have been already
successfully run.

The execution of the CONGEN run (third step of Section 10.2) is done without requesting
printing of the FIXSYS and VARSYS files since these files have been already checked for the
first predetermined expansion plan. Each new CONGEN should be selected by the user
according to own experience and judgement, in order to study several combinations of the
candidate plants and to use the WASP-IV modules to evaluate the corresponding costs.

Step 3A can run the REPROBAT module with only the output option for CONGEN to
document the various attempts which led to the series of predetermined expansion plans.

Step 4 (MERSIM run) is executed following the same procedure as explained in Section 10.2
for the first predetermined expansion plan without requesting printing of the FIXSYS and
VARSYS files. For these runs, the intermediate or minimum output options may be asked for,
as conveniently.

Step 5 (DYNPRO run) is done without asking for printing of the VARSYS file. After this run,
if it is required to keep a record of the REPROBAT report for each satisfying expansion
pattern, the REMERSIM module has to be executed (Step 6), following the procedure already
described in Section 10.2, before running the REPROBAT module (Step 7). The report
options to be asked for in REPROBAT are left to the discretion of the user; however, the
LOADSY, FIXSYS and VARSYS reports should be eliminated to reduce the length of the
printout.

250
Table 10.4. Execution of a series of predetermined expansion plans

STEP1 MODULE OUTPUT OPTIONS REQUIRED REMARKS

Printing of:
STEP 1 - - Not required.
STEP 2 - - Not required.
STEP 3 CONGEN FIXSYS and VARSYS files not To be executed after the debugging phase
required. has been completed for all modules.

STEP 3A REPROBAT Report option: CONGEN only. To document variation of constraints.

FIXSYS and VARSYS files not To be run after CONGEN has been
required. successfully run.
STEP 4 MERSIM
Minimum or Intermediate results of
simulation for all years, as required.
VARSYS file not required. To be run after successful run of
MERSIM.
STEP 5 DYNPRO Listing of states considered in the
run may be required (optional).

No printing of FIXSYS and To be executed after successful run of

VARSYS files. DYNPRO to obtain detailed reports on
STEP 6 REMERSIM group-limitations and simulation results.
Maximum output for selected years.
Use report options as necessary (e.g. Optional.
deleting LOADSY, FIXSYS and
STEP 7 REPROBAT VARSYS). To be run after successful run of all
modules.

251
 Predetermined Expansion Plan(s) Run(s)
LOADSY, FIXSYS and VARSYS runs tested

EXPANSION CONFIGURATION
Modify constraints GENERATOR Program

New Report
constraints MERGE/SIMULATE Program

OPTIMIZATION Program
Yes
Report

constraints
Report showing
?
optimal plan
and whether
No constrained

OPTIMAL PLAN Detail report on

REPORT GENERATOR optimal plan
Program

Figure 10.3. User-computer interaction in running the WASP-IV code for variable expansion
plans (adapted from ORNL 73-7759 RI).

252
Table 10.5. Search for optimal solution; running variable expansion plans
STEP MODULE OUTPUT OPTIONS REQUIRED REMARKS
STEP 1 CONGEN No printing of FIXSYS and Open or modify tunnel widths and/or
VARSYS files. minimum configuration and/or reserve
margin.
No printing of FIXSYS and To be run after successful run of
STEP 2 MERSIM VARSYS files. CONGEN.
Minimum output of results of
simulation for all years.
No printing of VARSYS file. To be run after successful run of
STEP 3 DYNPRO MERSIM.
Request up to five solutions.
No printing of list of states Examine the messages in the printout and
considered in the run. use them as a guide for relaxing the
constraints in following CONGEN run
accordingly.
Maximum output for the optimal To be run after DYNPRO has found the
STEP 4 REMERSIM solution. message-free (unconstrained) solution or
As necessary for intermediate best eventually to obtain a REPROBAT report
solution. of the best solution found by the current
DYNPRO run.
Full report for optimal solution. To be run only after REMERSIM has
STEP 5 REPROBAT As necessary for intermediate best been run.
solution. For each CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO
To document CONGEN, DYNPRO cycle.
only.

Table 10.6. Range of tunnel widths and possible number of configurations in the year as a
function of the number of competing candidate plants
NUMBER OF COMPETING GUIDE FOR TUNNEL WIDTHS MAXIMUM POSSIBLE NUMBER
CANDIDATE PLANTS FOR EACH CANDIDATE PLANT OF YEARLY CONFIGURATIONS
2 3 to 9 16 to 100
3 2 to 4 27 to 125
4 2 to 3 81 to 256
5 1 to 2 32 to 243
6 or more(*) 1 to 2 64 to 729

(*) In this case keep the reserve margins as narrow as judged necessary in order to avoid
having an exploding number of configurations.

For example, if in a given year a tunnel width of 3 units (or projects) is selected for each of 5
candidates plants, all combinations of them will produce: 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 1024 possible
configurations in the year; many of them, of course, may be rejected by the constraints
imposed by the reserve margins. However, with such a choice it is likely that the 500
configurations per year capability of CONGEN will be exceeded.

253
On the other hand, if a tunnel width of 1 unit is selected in a given year for each of 6
candidates plants, a maximum of 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 64 configurations in that year can be
expected, of which only a few may survive the reserve margins constraints. It will be shown
later, when discussing the run of DYNPRO, that a tunnel width of at least 2 units (or projects)
is required for a candidate plant in order to obtain an unconstrained expansion plan for that
plant. For a set of 6 candidate plants with a tunnel width of 2 units or projects for each
candidate, a maximum of 729 configurations can be expected in a year, as shown in Table
10.6.

The second step is to run MERSIM following instruction explained in Section 7.3. Only
minimum printout option for the results of the simulation should be requested. It is important
to check that the MERSIM run was successful and that all years of the study are shown
"closed" (a -1 in the printout indicates end of year). It may be emphasized that during
MERSIM runs for variable expansion, in order to keep the compatibility of results for the
configurations simulated in various iterations, no change can be made in its input, except
output option. If a change in loading order, maintenance schedule, spinning reserves or group-
limitations is made, the earlier simulations will not be compatible with the new ones.

Step 3 is to run DYNPRO (refer to Chapter 8 for running this module). In general, for each
variable expansion plan, a best solution for the run will be reported containing yearly
indications of which plants have been constrained by the tunnel widths used in CONGEN.
These messages should be used as a guide for changing (relaxing) the constraints for the next
CONGEN run as explained in Chapter 8. Figure 10.4 will help in the understanding of the
logic to be followed when changing the minimum number of units (or projects) and tunnel
widths constraints selected for a given candidate plant. This figure shows how the value of the
objective function for a given case changes according to the permitted number of
units/projects for one single expansion candidate.

For example, Case (a) of Fig. 10.4 gives the option taking either 4, 5 or 6 units of the
candidate plant (minimum number of units, or projects = 4; tunnel width = 2). If the objective
function versus number of units of this plant has a shape as shown in Fig. 10.4, DYNPRO will
choose 4 units of the plant and will report that the solution is constrained by the lower limit,
i.e. 4- will appear in the printout. This is so because the DYNPRO run did not have the
chance of testing 3 units for this plant. A subsequent run (Case (b) in the figure) allowing a
minimum number of units = 3 and tunnel width = 2 (options are now 3, 4 or 5 units of the
plant) will permit the computer to detect that the objective function is minimum for 4 units of
the plant considered. Case (c) of Fig. 10.4 will report the best solution as 2+ (against upper
limit) since the options left to the computer were 0, 1 or 2 units only. A run such as Case (d),
giving the computer the choice between 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 units of the plant, will also detect
that 4 units minimize the objective function for this case. Fig. 10.4 also makes clear that a
message-free solution is only possible if the computer is allowed to test at least one unit above
and one unit below the optimum; in other words allowing a tunnel width of 2 units.

After the first variable expansion DYNPRO run is successfully done, several iterations
involving sequential execution of CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO will in general be needed
to reach a message-free solution (or unconstrained solution) in DYNPRO. The key point in
reaching quickly the optimum is to make a careful analysis of the messages provided by
DYNPRO in order to prepare the subsequent CONGEN run for the next iteration. As a rule of
thumb in the preparation of a new CONGEN run, the user can simply keep the same tunnel
widths of the previous run but increasing by one the minimum number of units (or projects)

254
required of those plants marked with (+) messages, and decreasing by one the minimum
number of units (or projects) required for those plants with (-) messages.

On the other hand, if a tunnel width of 1 unit is selected in a given year for each of 6
candidates plants, a maximum of 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 64 configurations in that year can be
expected, of which only a few may survive the reserve margins constraints. It will be shown
later, when discussing the run of DYNPRO, that a tunnel width of at least 2 units (or projects)
is required for a candidate plant in order to obtain an unconstrained expansion plan for that
plant. For a set of 6 candidate plants with a tunnel width of 2 units or projects for each
candidate, a maximum of 729 configurations can be expected in a year, as shown in Table
10.6.

The second step is to run MERSIM following instruction explained in Section 7.3. Only
minimum printout option for the results of the simulation should be requested. It is important
to check that the MERSIM run was successful and that all years of the study are shown
"closed" (a -1 in the printout indicates end of year). It may be emphasized that during
MERSIM runs for variable expansion, in order to keep the compatibility of results for the
configurations simulated in various iterations, no change can be made in its input, except
output option. If a change in loading order, maintenance schedule, spinning reserves or group-
limitations is made, the earlier simulations will not be compatible with the new ones.

Step 3 is to run DYNPRO (refer to Chapter 8 for running this module). In general, for each
variable expansion plan, a best solution for the run will be reported containing yearly
indications of which plants have been constrained by the tunnel widths used in CONGEN.
These messages should be used as a guide for changing (relaxing) the constraints for the next
CONGEN run as explained in Chapter 8. Figure 10.4 will help in the understanding of the
logic to be followed when changing the minimum number of units (or projects) and tunnel
widths constraints selected for a given candidate plant. This figure shows how the value of the
objective function for a given case changes according to the permitted number of
units/projects for one single expansion candidate.

For example, Case (a) of Fig. 10.4 gives the option taking either 4, 5 or 6 units of the
candidate plant (minimum number of units, or projects = 4; tunnel width = 2). If the objective
function versus number of units of this plant has a shape as shown in Fig. 10.4, DYNPRO will
choose 4 units of the plant and will report that the solution is constrained by the lower limit,
i.e. 4- will appear in the printout. This is so because the DYNPRO run did not have the
chance of testing 3 units for this plant. A subsequent run (Case (b) in the figure) allowing a
minimum number of units = 3 and tunnel width = 2 (options are now 3, 4 or 5 units of the
plant) will permit the computer to detect that the objective function is minimum for 4 units of
the plant considered. Case (c) of Fig. 10.4 will report the best solution as 2+ (against upper
limit) since the options left to the computer were 0, 1 or 2 units only. A run such as Case (d),
giving the computer the choice between 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 units of the plant, will also detect
that 4 units minimize the objective function for this case. Fig. 10.4 also makes clear that a
message-free solution is only possible if the computer is allowed to test at least one unit above
and one unit below the optimum; in other words allowing a tunnel width of 2 units.

After the first variable expansion DYNPRO run is successfully done, several iterations
involving sequential execution of CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO will in general be needed
to reach a message-free solution (or unconstrained solution) in DYNPRO. The key point in
reaching quickly the optimum is to make a careful analysis of the messages provided by
DYNPRO in order to prepare the subsequent CONGEN run for the next iteration. As a rule of

255
thumb in the preparation of a new CONGEN run, the user can simply keep the same tunnel
widths of the previous run but increasing by one the minimum number of units (or projects)
required of those plants marked with (+) messages, and decreasing by one the minimum
number of units (or projects) required for those plants with (-) messages.

Objective Function Value ($)

changing number of units of
this candidate plant only

Case Message
Tunnel width (a) 4- (against lower limit)
Case (d) (b) 4 (optimum)
(c) 2+ (against upper limit)
Tunnel (d) 4 (optimum)
Tunnel width
width
Case (a)
Case (c)
Tunnel
width

Case (b)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of Units of
a candidate plant
in a certain year
Minimum number
Case (b)

Minimum number
Case (a)

Figure 10.4. Interpretation of the messages reported by DYNPRO.

It is also advisable that the user plots in a graph the value of the objective function for the
solution #1 reported by each DYNPRO run versus the respective iteration number. Figure
10.5 plots these values for the sample problem illustrated in this manual. It is interesting to
notice in this figure that the last two iterations did not produce an improvement of the value of

256
the objective function. Nevertheless, they were required to eliminate some of the DYNPRO
messages for intermediate years.

19000000

18500000
Objective Function (million US $)

18000000

17500000

17000000

16500000

16000000

15500000
Fixed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
Exp.
Iterations (Variable Expansion)

Figure 10.5. Evolution of the objective function value during the optimization process for the
sample problem (DEMOCASE).

Once the unconstrained solution is reported by DYNPRO, the user must proceed to Step 4, i.e.
to run REMERSIM for re-simulation of the optimal solution, following the explanation given
in Section 7.3.5. It must be remembered that the same input data used in the standard
MERSIM run should be used, except that the output option must be changed to maximum
output for all or some years of the study.

As explained in Section 7.3.5, careful revision of the REMERSIM output is needed in order to
check that the system operation, as simulated by the program for each configuration (period
and hydro-condition), can be considered as reasonable according to user's judgment and
experience on power system analysis and on the particular power system under study. In some
cases, as a consequence of the revision of the REMERSIM printout, it may be required to
continue the dynamic optimization process by executing new iterations with variable
expansion plans and correcting input data to CONGEN so as to remove the unsatisfactory
results reported by REMERSIM. In some other cases, even the input data to FIXSYS,
VARSYS or MERSIM must be corrected and the applicable module(s) re-run in order to
remove the incorrect results of the resimulation. Obviously, these data corrections
(particularly those concerning plant characteristics and costs, loading order instructions, etc.)
will affect the simulation of system operation, making the new MERSIM results no longer
compatible with those of previous runs. Thus, this would correspond to re-starting the whole
WASP study as explained in Section 10.2 onward but avoiding execution of those steps
already successfully completed (for example, it would not be required to re-run LOADSY
(first step of Section 10.2) nor the series of predetermined expansion plans (Section 10.3)).

257
After the above step is successfully completed, the REPROBAT module can be run (Step 5)
to obtain a full report on the optimal solution by selecting the proper output options for the
run.

In some cases, a total or partial report of the best solution found by DYNPRO so far (in the
current iteration) may be required, even if this solution has been constrained by the
restrictions in CONGEN (i.e. not the optimal solution). If so the user should follow the
procedure explained above.

10.4. Analysis of the optimal solution

Once the overall optimal solution for the expansion problem has been found by WASP, the
user must analyze the results in order to determine whether this economic optimal expansion
schedule is also a feasible program from the stand-point of the system's characteristics and the
country's economic and financial situation. In this analysis, the planner will check such
aspects as:

• Frequency stability to determine whether the largest unit (or project) capacity included
in the optimal schedule might produce instability of the system frequency.

• Plant additions schedule and costs.

• Fuel requirements to satisfy the expansion schedule.

• O&M costs of the system.

• Transmission system development (network development for bulk power transmission)

and associated costs.

• Manpower requirements for additions of nuclear and conventional stations and the
associated transmission system.

• Financial capabilities of the country to undertake the program.

• Environmental constraints.

As a result of these analyses, it might be required to revise some of the inputs to various
modules of WASP-IV and conduct a new series of variable expansion plans to calculate a new
optimal solution that fulfills the above checks.

The procedure is illustrated in a simplified way in Figure 10.6. In the figure, the above-
mentioned checks are displayed in separate blocks; the proper path to reach any block is
identified with arrows (full line); and the arrows in dashed line show the paths for the cases
needing executing of new WASP-IV runs.

Apart from the necessary sequence identified by the paths in Fig. 10.6, there is no special
order in which these checks should be carried out although a logical order would follow quite
closely the above list, so that the process is stopped if the optimal solution is feasible from the
financial capability of the country to undertake the expansion programme. This solution could
be used as "reference" solution for the execution of the sensitivity analysis explained in the
following section.

258
It should be emphasized that the analysis of the WASP best generation expansion schedule
proposed in this section does not constitute a feasibility study for any of the power plants that
are included in the schedule, nor of the whole generation addition schedule and related
investments. Detailed feasibility studies for establishing technical, economic and financial
soundness of individual projects will have to be conducted.

ANALYSIS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

CHECK FUEL REQUIREMENTS

CAPITAL COST CASH FLOW

FINANCIAL
BEST GENERATION
WASP EXPANSION PLAN ANALYSIS
FOUND BY WASP
O&M COST CASH FLOW

WASP
CHECK MANPOWER
FEASIBLE
DEVELOPMENT
SOLUTION

ANALYSIS OF LOCATION OF
POWER PLANTS

ANALYSIS OF TRANSMISSION
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
CAPITAL COST CASH FLOW
CHECK SYSTEM FREQUENCY
STABILITY (LARGEST UNIT
SIZE)

Figure 10.6. Analysis of the WASP-IV output.

259
 CHAPTER 11. EXECUTION OF SENSITIVITY STUDIES

11.1. Need to conduct sensitivity studies

The expansion of electric power generating systems involves the mobilization of large
resources of various kinds (financial, manpower, fuel etc.) which imposes the need for careful
planning of this expansion. This is not exclusive of any particular country, but rather of
universal nature, and thus applies to industrialized countries and developing countries as well.
However, in most developing countries a situation of limited resources is more acute, so that
these countries face a more pressing need for adequate allocation of these resources among all
sectors of the economy, rather than giving “unnecessary” advantage in resource allocation to
any particular sector (i.e., the electricity supply sector) instead of using these resources for
solving other, and perhaps more immediate, social problems (housing, health, education, food
etc.).

The above ideas encompass a major concept, i.e. the need for integrated energy planning
whereby the demand and supply of energy in all its forms is examined within the larger
context of the overall requirements of a country for products and services in order to satisfy
the socio-economic and technical development goals established by the society (its
government and leaders), and the possibilities to achieve these objectives. The WASP
analysis should be considered only as a part of the overall planning process for a country or
region. In order to integrate the results of WASP analysis with overall energy planning and
economic development planning a number of iterations would be required to capture
interactions between electric sector and overall energy sector and the national economy.

Concentrating now on the system expansion analysis alone, all planners are well aware of the
uncertainties connected to the basic information being used in the planning studies.
Uncertainties arise not only from lack of knowledge about the present value of the input
information (forcing the planner to make assumptions), but even if this information can be
considered very reliable, the future evolution of the related parameters is rather uncertain.
These involve important aspects such as the demand forecast, the technical characteristics of
the power plants (days of maintenance, heat rates, FOR etc.), the economic information
related to these plants (fuel prices, O&M costs, investment costs etc.), up to the very basic
information on the future value of some economic parameters (discount and escalation rates)
or the required level of the quality of supply to be achieved by the resulting power system
configurations (reserve margins, LOLP constraint, cost of unserved energy).

Needles to say that many of these values may be altered in the future and that some of them
may interact with one another (discount rate and investment cost are a perfect example) and
the range of variation in the future may be unpredictable. This is why that the planners must
do is to complement the results of the expansion studies, carried out by means of WASP-IV
or similar capacity expansion optimization models, with sufficient information on the possible
variations of the optimal schedule of plant additions as a consequence of changes in the basic
information and hypotheses used to determine the reference optimal solution(s), or in other
words, the range of validity of the reference solution. This explains why sensitivity analyses
are inseparable from system expansion studies.

Another reason to conduct sensitivity studies is to serve as a feedback for decision-making

purpose on energy matters. An example of this could be when considering development of a
certain type of fuel for which only scarce information is available regarding the future costs
connected with mining, refining, transporting and distributing this fuel for electricity

260
production or other end-uses. By making some assumptions for the determination of the
reference optimal solution and varying these assumptions during sensitivity analysis, the
planner can provide a range of the associated fuel cost that would make this “fuel” type
attractive or otherwise for system expansion.

The results of the sensitivity analyses should be included as part of the report of the system
expansion optimization study. This part of the report should be basically addressed to the
decision-makers in terms of making some recommendations arising from the execution of
sensitivity analyses. Hence, the presentation of the results is an important phase of the
preparation of a WASP study report, and should include above all a discussion about why the
studied parameters (and not others) were selected. In addition, the results of sensitivity
analyses presented alone would have no meaning without an adequate discussion of their
implications in order to alert the decision-makers about any potential risks connected with
decisions which they will have to make in the near and medium term future.

11.2. What sensitivity analyses to conduct

Judging from the above discussion, the general rule for conducting sensitivity analysis would
be to consider all type of information for which large uncertainties are recognised at the outset
of the optimization study, either because of lack of knowledge on their statistical or current
value (e.g., acceptable LOLP for the system, equivalent forced outage rates and O&M cost of
existing units etc.) or because their future evolution is difficult to predict (fuel costs, load
forecast etc.).

Naturally when looking at this general rule, the tendency would be to conduct a large number
of sensitivity analyses to cover all possible uncertainties in the basic data used and the
hypotheses made. Fortunately, the number is generally reduced because of practical
considerations regarding the power system characteristics and the economic environment that
can be reasonably foreseen at the outset of the study (put aside any unforeseeable changes
such as natural catastrophes, an oil embargo, a war, a breakthrough for a new technology
etc.). In addition, the present technology for electricity generation is already well known and
its characteristics can vary within certain range because of site conditions (slight variations in
power output and heat rate can exist due to differences of temperature of cooling water, the
outside temperature or the altitude as compared to the design conditions), but the range of
variation is rather limited and its effect on the optimization is also small. For example, heat
rate variation of a candidate power plant from 2140 kcal/kWh to say 2160 kcal/kWh would
basically alter the annual operating costs of the optimal solution, but without changing the
configurations included in this solution, unless the given plant is marginally optimal, which
could be easily detected when changing any other more critical parameters such as, for
instance, the investment cost or the related fuel costs.

Moreover, carrying out too many sensitivity analyses and including them as part of the report
of the optimization study will tend to diminish the credibility of the study, as well as leading
to confusion in terms of the interpretation of the results and of the study recommendations.
Both will have a negative effect on the perception by the decision-maker. Consequently, it is
necessary to concentrate in a few sensitivity analyses to study the variation of the optimal
solution to the most important parameters for which the planner(s) and sometimes the
decision-makers accord the highest degree of uncertainty. Some of the sensitivity analyses
most frequently considered are:

261
 • demand forecast,

• fuel cost,

• investment cost of new power plants,

• discount rate,

• year in which certain plants can be added to the system,

• special considerations related to plant site,

• quality of supply (reserve margin, LOLP limit, cost of unserved energy),

• environmental issues/constraints.

11.3. How WASP-IV can be used to conduct sensitivity studies

Owing to the modular structure of WASP, sensitivity analyses can be performed to evaluate
the effects of the various economic parameters on the “reference” optimal solution, by simply
rerunning the DYNPRO module. These studies are easy to conduct, particularly if the new
values of the parameters do not cause the optimal solution to move against the tunnel
boundaries of CONGEN (signs + or - in the DYNPRO output). If the solution does hit the
tunnel boundaries of CONGEN, a few additional iterations of CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO
may be required to find a new unconstrained “optimal” solution. The process, however, may
take rather limited computation time since the “reference” optimal solution represents a
“good” starting point for the additional iterations.

The economic parameters that may be studied include:

(1) Plant capital cost (range, environmental protection equipment etc.);

(2) Capital cost escalation ratios;

(3) Discount rates;

(4) System reliability requirement (critical LOLP); and

(5) Energy-not-served costs.

The economic parameters affecting fuel prices may also be varied in sensitivity studies.
However, some care must be taken to ensure that the changes in these parameters would not
produce a change in the loading order used for the simulation of system operation
(MERSIM). Hence, sensitivity analyses can be made for reasonable perturbations of the
following variables:

(1) Fuel cost escalation factors;

(2) Penalty factor on foreign expenditures.

If it is desired to make large changes in the above variables, particularly fuel costs (e.g. the
cost of a given fuel changing by 3 times its reference value), which would cause a change in

262
the loading order, sensitivity analyses could still be made. In this case, however, the operating
costs for all states are no longer valid and would have to be recalculated for the new loading
order, through new iterations with modules CONGEN-MERSIM-DYNPRO.

Sensitivity analyses involving modifications such as the load forecast (LOADSY), committed
schedule of plant additions and retirements (FIXSYS), the preferred sequence of installation
of hydroelectric or pumped-storage projects (VARSYS), to name a few, would require to
process a complete new WASP study.

Concerning the load forecast, a new WASP study should be conducted based on a different
development scenario (refer again to integrated energy planning).

Sensitivity analysis of committed schedule of plant additions and retirements could be

conducted if the associated plants were introduced as part of the VARSYS description and
maintained as fixed (minimum number of units on record type 2 of CONGEN equal to the
number of units in the plant with zero tunnel widths) during the search of the reference
optimal solution. Then, while conducting sensitivity analysis, the corresponding plants could
be postponed or advanced by one or several years, as deemed necessary, in order to determine
the impact of this change on the optimal solution.

Due to the large spectrum of situations described above, ranking from one additional run of
DYNPRO to a completely new WASP study, there is no specific procedure for the use of
WASP-IV code to conduct sensitivity studies. As mentioned in Chapter 9, the main
REPROBAT screen (Fig. 9.1) includes the button Start Sensitivity Analysis but just to
remind the user that after finding the “reference” optimal solution the next natural step is to
conduct sensitivity analyses. When clicking this button the WASP Modules screen is shown
(Figure 2.11) to allow the user to continue the use of the program in the desired way.

11.4. Practical steps for conducting sensitivity studies

Before proceeding with the execution of sensitivity analyses, find the unconstrained optimal
solution for the power system under study (i.e. the DYNPRO solution showing no signs + or -
, unless these signs are unavoidable: e.g. a + sign connected with a hydro plant for which all
projects of this type have been exhausted in the given year, or when reaching the limit of
capacity additions for a certain thermal power plant, for example lignite-fired units associated
to a given mine. Although, in principle, a minus (-) sign could be accepted for a certain
candidate which for various reasons must be added to the system in a given year, this situation
should be avoided for the “reference optimal solution”).

Decide which sensitivity analyses are of interest for your case study in the light of the results
of the optimization phase. For example, if the reference optimal solution shows a marked
preference for one type of “fuel”, it is obviously interesting to find the range of validity of
such preference for changes in the fuel costs of the related candidate plants. Similarly, if the
preference refers to a particular candidate, sensitivity analysis could be conducted on its
capital investment cost, or inversely on the capital costs of the second, third, etc. most
preferred candidate. Likewise, if there is interest in a particular technology, which in the end
is not included in the reference optimal solution, sensitivity analysis on its capital investment
cost and associated fuel cost may be necessary.

Several other sensitivity analyses should be decided based on general considerations about the
uncertainties of the input information (e.g. critical LOLP, cost of unserved energy etc.).

263
Create for each sensitivity analysis a new case by copying the case corresponding to the
“reference optimal solution”.

Make a choice of what input data needs to be altered to achieve the intended sensitivity
analysis. Examples are:

• when increasing fuel prices, changes can be affected either as escalation factors or
multiplication factors in DYNPRO (if the old loading order is altered, new LO. must
be provided in appropriate years in MERSIM);

• if a certain "fuel" is chosen by the reference solution, the same sensitivity analysis
could be conducted by either increasing the fuel cost of the preferred fuel or by
decreasing the fuel cost of the next favoured fuel type.

Apply logical judgement of the required analyses, what is required to be accomplished and the
range of each analysis. In the same example of the preferred fuel for system expansion
mentioned above, it would probably make no sense to conduct a sensitivity analysis that
considers a further decrease of the price of this fuel, since the effect on the solution would be
to reduce the total system operating costs and probably increase the number of units of this
fuel type in the solution. Sometimes, however, such a study may be required for decision-
making on energy matters (setting up the price of a certain fuel not yet developed in the
country and for which price information is rather unknown).

Make some logical guesses about the anticipated results of the sensitivity analysis before
proceeding to prepare the required CONGEN run (if needed). For example, if it is expected
that the changes considered would lead to different number of units, provision should be
made as to allow in CONGEN more units of the candidate that would become more favoured
after changing the parameter(s) being analysed at each time.

Prepare a new CONGEN allowing competition among all VARSYS candidates expected to be
changed in the number of accepted units (reference solution) as a result of the variation in the
selected parameter under study, making sure that the optimal solution can always be retrieved
in DYNPRO using the reference values of the parameter. By careful production of a
CONGEN run (using minimum number of sets and tunnel width parameters), it may be
possible to cover a wide range of sensitivity analyses.

Before starting to make changes in the selected parameters, re-run MERSIM and DYNPRO to
make sure that the optimal solution can be reproduced with the new CONGEN data.

Select the range of variation for each parameter to be studied and start varying the value of
each parameter at a time while maintaining the value of the other parameters constant from
their reference values. Each parameter change should be made in a stepwise manner and the
DYNPRO results analyzed before proceeding to the next run.

In some cases, if the new best solution starts showing signs (+ or -) or even divert from the
reference solution in terms of the number of units added, some new iterations of CONGEN-
MERSIM-DYNPRO may be needed in order to find a new unconstrained solution (e.g.
discount rate being changed from the reference value of 10%/a to 8%/a).

In other cases, specially when examining a wide range of variation for the parameter under
study, it is not necessary to re-optimize at each stage of variation, since it suffices to observe
the tendency of the new best solution and continue changing the value of the parameter in the

264
same direction until the solution diverts from the reference one. This level or perhaps one step
of variation less would represent the break-even point for the parameter being considered. If
desired, re-optimize again at this break-even point. It is recommended to save the input and
output files corresponding to each sensitivity analysis in different cases, with some comments
added to keep record of all the analyses.

265
 CHAPTER 12. TECHNICAL DETAILS OF NEW FEATURES OF WASP-IV

12.1. Multiple group-limitations

12.1.1. Introduction

It is very often in the practice that the electric power utilities have to operate the power plants
taking into account some constraints limiting the generations of the units. The limitations can
be arising from several causes, e.g. limited energy available for hydroelectric plants,
constraints on the amount of some fuel(s) available etc. In recent years, environmental
concerns have led to regulations that may also limit operation of power plants. These
considerations require taking into account, at the time of planning for expansion of the electric
system, the practical problems faced by the utility operators. The production costing methods
employed for system operation simulation should, therefore, be able to handle such situations.

WASP-IV offers the option to take into consideration several types of external constraints
which may limit generation of some of the units. The probabilistic simulation method utilized
by WASP for production costing has been combined with a linear programming model to
simulate the operation of system under such constraints, which are named as multiple group-
limitations. Here the group-limitation means that for a group of units, the weighted sum of the
unit generations is limited. The weights, called here coefficients, may be of course different.
For energy-limited units, the coefficient is 1. For fuel-limited groups, the coefficients are the
average fuel consumption rates. For emission-limited groups, the coefficients are the emission
rates etc. Several group-limitations can be considered, and a unit can take part in any number
of these group-limitations, hence the name multiple group-limitations. For example, a coal-
fired unit may occur both in a coal-limitation and in an emission-limitation.

The next sections describe the linear programming model for determining an optimal dispatch
policy subject to multiple group-limitations and a methodology for generating the linear
programming problem.

12.1.2. A linear programming model

Let the inverted load duration curve with normalized duration axis be denoted by L(x). Let the
generating system consist of N units. For the sake of simplicity, it is assumed here that the
units have single-block representation. The extensions relating to the multi-block
representation will be treated in Section 12.1.4. For Unit i, the following notations are used:

Gi = expected energy generation (MWh),

ci = cost of generating 1 MWh energy.

Let M be the number of the group-limitations. For Group j, let Ij denote the index set of the
units being elements of the group. A unit can relate to an arbitrary number of groups including
zero. Let the positive numbers LIMITj, j=1,...,M, denote the quantities of the limitations.

Consider a Unit i and a Group j such that i∈Ij. Let the positive real COEFij denote the
quantity used from LIMITj if Unit i generates 1 MWh energy. For example, COEFij may be
the SO2 emission, measured in kilograms, caused by generating 1 MWh energy by Unit i.

266
Generally, the unit of measurement of COEFij is the ratio of that of LIMITj to MWh.
Assuming linearity here, the group-limitations mean:

∑ COEF × G ≤ LIMIT for j=1,...,M. (1)

ij i j
i∈I
j

N
The cost of these generations is ∑c G .
i =1
i i

Since it may occur that there exists no such loading order that the generation values Gi,
obtained by the relating production costing simulation algorithm, would satisfy (1), several
loading orders should be used during the period.

A loading order of the units is called strategy if it is considered as an acceptable L.O. during a
part of the period. Although the number of the loading orders is N!, a great part of them can
be omitted at once. For example, a nuclear unit should not be in a peaking position.

Let S1,...,SK denote strategies to be considered, where K is their number. For every strategy
Sk, k=1,...,K, perform the production costing simulation using the loading order of Sk. Of
course, the group-limitations are not taken into account during the simulations. Let G ki be the
expected generations of the units obtained in this way for i=1,...,N and k=1,...,K. Let COSTk
denote the production cost of generation using Sk in the whole period.

N
COSTk = ∑ ci × G ki for k=1,...,K.
i =1

Let Rkj denote the quantity consumed from the resource relating to Group j by using strategy
Sk in the whole period. Then

Rkj = ∑ COEFij × G ki for k=1,...,K and j=1,...,M.

i∈I j

For every strategy Sk, a weight wk representing the ratio of the duration of using Sk to the
whole period has to be determined. Of course, they should be determined in such a way that
the total generation cost be minimal subject to the group-limitations. This can be done by
solving the linear programming (LP) problem:
K
minimize ∑ COST
k =1
k wk (2)

K
subject to: ∑R
k =1
kj ⋅ wk ≤ LIMIT j , j=1,...,M, (3)

∑w
k =1
k = 1, (4)

wk ≥ 0 , k=1,...,K. (5)

267
Constraints (4)-(5) mean the evidences that the sum of the time-fractions used for the
strategies must be just the length of the period, in addition, any fraction cannot be negative.

The following statements come from the theory of linear programming. If the LP problem (2)-
(5) has a feasible solution, then it has also a finite optimum since the feasible set is bounded.
Moreover, one can obtain an optimal solution such that at most M+1 of the variables are
positive. This means that an optimal solution can be mixed from at most M+1 strategies.

Using the optimal solution of (2)-(5), the average loss-of-load probability (LOLP) and energy-
not-served (ENS) values relating to the whole period can be obtained simply by:
K
ENS = ∑ ENS k ⋅ wk (6)
k =1

and
K
LOLP = ∑ LOLPk ⋅ wk (7)
k =1

where ENSk and LOLPk are the corresponding values of the strategies relating also to the
whole period. Similarly, the expected generations of the units are obtained as:
K
Gi = ∑ G ki ⋅ wk for i=1,...,N. (8)
k =1

Of course, if the group-limitations are too low, problem (2)-(5) may have no feasible solution.
Then either the limitations should be reconsidered or further strategies should be introduced.
In extreme case, it may however occur that a feasible solution can be obtained only by
introducing such strategies where the capacities of some units taking role in a group of
exceeded limitation are derated or some of these units are omitted from the loading order.
This latter is equivalent to derate the capacities of some units to zero. A possible by-effect of
derating or omitting some units is that the generation of some other units may increase. This
entails that meanwhile one introduces and mixes new strategies in order to fulfill a group-
limitation, other group-limitations may be damaged. At the very worst, one can however
introduce the extreme strategy where every unit taking role in any group-limitation is omitted.
The introduction of this strategy ensures always that (2)-(5) has feasible solution.

If the capacity of some units is derated or some units are omitted from the loading order, the
generation cost of this strategy decreases but the relating LOLP and ENS values increase. If
the linear programming model (2)-(5) is also used in this case, one would obtain false result.
Since the unserved consumer demand is not penalized, the linear programming model (2)-(5)
strives for mixing the optimal solution from the cheap strategies with derated or omitted units.
The average ENS and LOLP values (6)-(7) may be so unreal.

Two approaches can be proposed to avoid this phenomenon. Both approaches use non-
negative penalty factors α and ß for LOLP and ENS, respectively. For example, ß can be the
real cost of the unserved energy.

268
(a) The first approach adds a penalty term
K

∑ (α ⋅ LOLP
k =1
k + β ⋅ ENS k ) ⋅wk (9)

to (2), i.e. the linear program:

K
minimize ∑ (COST
k =1
k + α ⋅ LOLPk + β ⋅ ENS k ) ⋅wk (10)

K
subject to: ∑R
k =1
kj ⋅ wk ≤ LIMIT j , j=1,...,M, (11)

∑w
k =1
k = 1, (12)

wk ≥ 0 , k=1,...,K. (13)

is to be solved. It is easy to see that if there exists no strategy with derated or omitted units
among those used in (2)-(5) and (10)-(13), then the optimal solutions of these two problems
are the same. This follows immediately since (9) is now constant under (4).

(b) The second approach consists of two steps.

In the first step, the minimal penalized average values of LOLP and ENS are searched for, i.e.
the linear program:
K
minimize ∑ (α ⋅ LOLP + β ⋅ ENS
k =1
k k ) ⋅wk (14)

K
subject to: ∑R
k =1
kj ⋅ wk ≤ LIMIT j , j=1,...,M, (15)

∑w
k =1
k = 1, (16)

wk ≥ 0 , k=1,...,K. (17)

is to be solved. Let µ denote the optimal value of (14)-(17).

In the second step, the linear program:

K
minimize ∑ COST
k =1
k ⋅wk (18)

K
subject to: ∑R
k =1
kj ⋅ wk ≤ LIMIT j , j=1,...,M, (19)

269
 K

∑w
k =1
k = 1, (20)

∑(α ⋅ LOLP + β ⋅ ENS ) ⋅ w = μ ,

k =1
k k k (21)

wk ≥ 0 , k=1,...,K. (22)

is to be solved. Problem (18)-(22) is obtained by adding (21) to (2)-(5). Constraint (21)

ensures the choice among the feasible solutions with the minimal weighted sum of the
penalized LOLP and ENS. Of course, the optimal solutions of (2)-(5) and (18)-(22) are again
the same if we have no strategy with derated or omitted unit.

Concerning the choice between these two approaches, the first approach can only be used in
such cases when true values for factors α and ß can be given. For this reason, the second
approach has been implemented in WASP- IV.

The crucial point of the implementation of the methodology proposed here is the way in
which the strategies are selected for the linear programming problem. Too few strategies may
not ensure the feasibility. The mere increase of the number of strategies entails, of course, the
increase of computational time but does not guarantee obtaining the feasibility
unconditionally. The choice of the strategies to be introduced should be performed in an
efficient way. The heuristic method presented in the next section serves for this purpose.

12.1.3. A heuristic method for generating the linear programming model

The heuristic method presented here is inspired by two aims. On the one hand, feasible
solution should be found for the linear program as soon as possible, i.e. by performing as few
production costing simulation as possible. On the other hand, the strategies selected for
mixing a production plan should have values of production cost, LOLP and ENS as low as
possible. The heuristic method makes a compromise between these two objectives.

The production costing simulations, without taking the group-limitations into account, can be
performed by subroutine SIMUL of WASP18. The first strategy S1 to be introduced is selected
in the same way as in subroutine ANSIM, i.e. S1 is the loading order submitted by the user or
that generated by subroutine MILORD. Subroutine SIMUL is performed and having now
K=1, the values for LOLP1, ENS1 and R1j for j=1,...,M are determined. These are used for
the constraint system (3)-(5) of the linear programs. If,

R1 j ≤ LIMIT j for j=1,...,M, (23)

then the starting loading order is an optimal strategy, i.e. w1 = 1 is an optimal solution.
Otherwise, the linear program has no feasible solution and new strategy has to be introduced.

18
SIMUL, ANSIM and MILORD are MERSIM subroutines with the following functions:
− SIMUL: performs simulation of system operation for each configuration;
− ANSIM: prepares data for the simulation;
− MILORD: MERSIM integrated loading order generator.

270
Choose an index j1 such that R1 j1 > LIMIT j1 . Consider the strategy where the units belonging to
the j1-th group-limitation are moved to the end of the loading order. The relative order among
the moved units is however kept. Let this strategy be denoted by S2 and perform the production
costing simulation for it by subroutine SIMUL. From the results of SIMUL, the data relevant to
strategy S2 are determined and strategy S2 is introduced into the linear program.

The production costing simulation performed for strategy S2 furnishes data, as by-products, also
for further strategies. Let S3 denote the strategy obtained from S2 by omitting the last unit. The
generations of the remaining units are the same in both strategies S2 and S3. The value of ENS3
and LOLP3 can be obtained from the last but one equivalent load duration curve determined by
the simulation executed for S2.

Similarly, if the last but one unit of S2 belongs also to the j-th group-limitation, a strategy S4 can
be generated by omitting the last two units from S2. The corresponding values of ENS4 and
LOLP4 can be obtained from the last but two equivalent load duration curve.

Generally, by moving the units of the j1-th group-limitation to the end of the loading order and
performing one production costing simulation, I j1 + 1 strategies can be introduced into the
linear program. Here, I j1 is the index set of the units belonging to the j1-th group-limitation and
I j1 denotes the number of the elements of I j1 . Of course, subroutine SIMUL has been
modified in such a way that the relevant data are stored in the convolution steps and are
retrievable when the simulation has been completed.

To illustrate the construction of the strategies, consider the simple example below. Let N=12
and M=2, i.e. there are 12 units and 2 group-limitations. Let the units be denoted by U1,...,U12.
Assume that units U2, U5, U7 and U9 belong to the first group-limitation, and units U4, U7, U9
and U11 belong to the second group-limitation. Suppose that the starting loading order
submitted by the user or determined by subroutine MILORD is U1, U2,..., U12. Then, strategy
S1 is as follows:

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
S1: U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9 U10 U11 U12
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

Assume that (23) does not hold and let j1=1. The five strategies introduced by the second
production costing simulation are depicted below.

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
S2: U1 U3 U4 U6 U8 U10 U11 U12 U2 U5 U7 U9
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

271
 LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓ ↓
S3: U1 U3 U4 U6 U8 U10 U11 U12 U2 U5 U7
↑ ↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓
S4: U1 U3 U4 U6 U8 U10 U11 U12 U2 U5
↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

LIMITATION 1

↓
S5: U1 U3 U4 U6 U8 U10 U11 U12 U2
↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

S6: U1 U3 U4 U6 U8 U10 U11 U12

↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

Having now 6 strategies, or K strategies generally, it has to be tested that whether a feasible
solution can be mixed from the introduced strategies. For K=1, this test means simply to
check the validity of relations (23). For K>1, the well-known first phase procedure of linear
programming can be used. Consider the linear program:
M
minimize ∑y
j =1
j (24)

K
subject to: − y j + ∑ Rkj ⋅ wk ≤ LIMIT j , j=1,...,M, (25)
k =1

∑w
k =1
k =1, (26)

yj ≥ 0, j=1,...,M, wk ≥ 0 , k=1,...,K. (27)

Problem (24)-(27) has always an optimal solution and a non-negative optimal value.
Moreover, system (3)-(5) has a feasible solution if and only if the optimal value of (24)-(27) is
zero. In this case, the second phase of the procedure can be started, i.e. one can solve the
selected linear program presented in the previous section.

272
If the optimal value of (24)-(27) is positive, further strategy is to be introduced. Consider
those indices j∈{1,...,M} for which yj>0 in the optimal solution of (24)-(27). If there exists an
index, say j2, among them such that the matter described above for the units of the j1-th group-
limitation has not been performed yet for the units of the j2-th group-limitation, select this j2.
Perform the matter above now with j2 instead of j1. This means that the units taking role in the
j2-th group-limitation are moved to the end in the initial loading order. Subroutine SIMUL is
called again to perform the production costing simulation and I j2 + 1 new strategies are
generated for the linear program.

In the context of the example presented above, let j2=2. The 5 new strategies are depicted
below.

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
S7: U1 U2 U3 U5 U6 U8 U10 U12 U4 U7 U9 U11
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
S8: U1 U2 U3 U5 U6 U8 U10 U12 U4 U7 U9
↑ ↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓ ↓
S9: U1 U2 U3 U5 U6 U8 U10 U12 U4 U7
↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓
S10: U1 U2 U3 U5 U6 U8 U10 U12 U4
↑
LIMITATION 2

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓
S11: U1 U2 U3 U5 U6 U8 U10 U12

The new strategies are added to (24)-(27) and the LP problem is solved. If the optimal value is
now zero, the first phase procedure is complete. Otherwise, it is checked that whether there
exists an index j3 with the same property as j2 above. If the answer is positive, the matter
above is now repeated with j3.

273
If no such a j3 has been found, the loading order of S1 is selected again. Every unit taking role
in any group-limitation is moved now to the end of the loading order in such a way that the
relative order among the moved units is kept. Subroutine SIMUL is called again to perform
the production costing simulation for this new strategy. As by-products, the data of the
strategies obtained by omitting the last, last two, etc. units are also generated. Altogether,
M

UI j + 1 new strategies are generated by this single call of SIMUL. The 7 new strategies
j =1

obtained in this way for the example are depicted below.

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
S12: U1 U3 U6 U8 U10 U12 U2 U4 U5 U7 U9 U11
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
S13: U1 U3 U6 U8 U10 U12 U2 U4 U5 U7 U9
↑ ↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓ ↓
S14: U1 U3 U6 U8 U10 U12 U2 U4 U5 U7
↑ ↑
LIMITATION 2

LIMITATION 1

↓ ↓
S15: U1 U3 U6 U8 U10 U12 U2 U4 U5
↑
LIMITATION 2

LIMITATION 1

↓
S16: U1 U3 U6 U8 U10 U12 U2 U4
↑
LIMITATION 2

274
 LIMITATION 1

↓
S17 U1 U3 U6 U8 U10 U12 U2

S18 U1 U3 U6 U8 U10 U12

Add the new strategies to (24)-(27). Notice that the special strategy obtained by omitting
every unit taking role in any group-limitation is also among them. Since

Rkj = 0, j=1,...,M,

for this special strategy, the optimal value of (24)-(27) is now zero. Consequently, one can
proceed with the second phase procedure, i.e. solving problem (10)-(13) or problems (14)-
(17) and (18)-(22).

The heuristic method presented above requires to call subroutine SIMUL at most M+2 times
M M
and generates at most M + 2 + ∑ I j + U I j strategies for the linear programs. This heuristic
j =1 j =1

method may seem to be too primitive and unreal because of moving the whole set of the units
of an exceeded group-limitation to the end of the loading order. It would be more
sophisticated to select only a subset of these units and to move them only some positions
higher. The introduction of such strategies would be more realistic and may further decrease
the production cost obtained by the optimal solution of the linear programs presented in the
previous section. The expense of the introduction of such strategies may be however the
drastic increase of the computational time. This is why the simpler version has been
implemented in the WASP-IV.

12.1.4. The case of multi-block representation of units

In WASP-IV, in order to better simulate the economic dispatch procedure, two-block

representation of the units is also allowed. Although, for facilitating comprehension only the
single-block representation was used in the previous sections. Nevertheless, the heuristic
method works in the same way for the two-block representation. The role of the units is taken
now over by the blocks. In the initial loading order, every base block precedes the
corresponding peak block. The two blocks of a unit take part simultaneously in a group-
limitation. Moving all blocks of a group-limitation into higher positions, the relative order
among the moved blocks is kept.

12.1.5. Allocation of annual limits for periods

Among the input data, the annual values of the limits are to be given along with (optional) the
period distribution of these limits. If the period distribution is not given, the annual limits are
then divided into period limits by the program. For this purpose the new subroutine DIVLIM
is called by ANSIM. The annual limits relating to regulations of environmental pollution are
simply divided into equal period limits, i.e. the annual value is divided by the number of

275
periods. For the other limitations (e.g. limited fuel amount), the sums of block capacities
weighed by their availability coefficients are determined for every period. Then the annual
limit is divided into period limits proportionally to these weighed sums.

12.2. Representation of pumped-storage plants

The option for representation of pumped-storage plants in WASP-IV has been included in
view of the importance of energy storage technologies, particularly the hydro pumped-storage
plants. Pumped-storage units save fuel costs by serving the peak load demand, usually served
by high fuel cost units, with hydro energy that was pumped to a higher level reservoir during
periods of low demand (evening, weekends) when more economic units can be utilized.

The pumped-storage plants are limited both in capacity and energy. Their economic
evaluation depends on:

• characteristics of the load duration curve (LDC),

• composition of the generating system,

• reliability of each unit, and

• running cost (i.e. fuel and variable O&M) of all types of units.

The characteristics of a pumped-storage plant j is described in WASP-IV by the following

parameters:

Pj = Pumping capacity (MW)

Gj = Generating capacity (MW)

Ej = Maximum feasible energy generation (storage capacity, GWh)

npj = Pumping efficiency (%)

ngj = Generating efficiency (%)

nj = npj • ngj = Cycle efficiency (%).

When more than one pumped-storage project exists in the system, the projects are aggregated to
form an equivalent composite pumped-storage project as follows:

P =∑Pj
j

G = ∑G j
j

E =∑Ej
j

276
 n p = ∑ n pj .
Pj
j P

n g = ∑ n gj . G
Gj
j

n = np • ng

where:

P = Composite P-S plant pumping capacity (MW)

G = Composite P-S plant generating capacity (MW)

E = Composite P-S plant storage capacity (GWh)

np = Composite P-S plant pumping efficiency (%)

ng = Composite P-S plant generating efficiency (%)

n = np • ng = Composite P-S plant cycle efficiency (%)

The weighting of the individual efficiencies with the individual capacities assumes that all
projects have the same capacity factor and hence is only an approximation.

The pumping (i.e. charging) and generating operations can be considered independently. The
generation amount is given by the following equation:

Eg = n • Ep

where:

Eg : Generation (GWh)

Ep : Pumping (GWh)

To take into account the pumped-storage plant operation, modifications were made to several
modules (FIXSYS, VARSYS, CONGEN, MERSIM and DYNPRO). The individual pumped-
storage plants are combined into one equivalent pumping hydro plant described by its
pumping potential (pumped-storage energy), nominal capacity, cycle efficiency and O&M
cost. If a pumped-storage plant is active in any year of the study, then the capacity and energy
values for the composite hydro plants (HYD1 and HYD2) are summed to create a single
composite hydro plant, which is treated as HYD2 and renamed HYDR. The composite hydro
plant HYD1 is then renamed PUMP and used to represent the generating side of the pumped-
storage plant. If no pumped-storage plant is active, composite plants HYD1 and HYD2 are
treated individually as in WASP-III Plus. The above logic was followed because the same
approach of the WASP-II version was applied for the simulation of P-S plant operation in
WASP-IV (one composite hydro project and one composite pumped-storage project). The real
operation of pumped-storage units is inherently chronological. However, since in the WASP
model the load duration oriented simulation is used, this implies an inherent loss of

277
chronological information. The operation of pumped-storage plants has, thus, been modelled
on period basis.

The pumping process is performed in every period of the year. In order to calculate the
potential pumping of the thermal units to fill the “reservoir”, the procedure starts from the
thermal units which are lower in the loading order and can produce extra energy than that
actually produced on the given LDC. For each thermal plant j, the program computes the
energy that can be replaced (Egj) by the generation of the pumped-storage plant and the
energy that is available for pumping (Epj). In the case where the pumped-storage plant is able
to offset generation from the thermal plant considered (i.e. Egj>0), the load is reduced by the
generating capacity of the pumped-storage plant. In a similar way, when energy is available
for pumping purposes (i.e. Epj>0), the load for the thermal plant considered is increased by
the pumping.

If the thermal block considered shares the place in the loading order with the hydro peaking
block, then this complex situation is referred to as the fractional case. The calculation of
possible pumped-storage plant generation and pumping for the thermal plant considered is in
general made by the energy integration in two places: in the actual place and in a displaced
position of the thermal plant. This displacement is practically made by the change of the
integration limits.

After the energy calculation it is possible to form a complete loading order list of plants,
containing energy produced in the system without the thermal plant that could be replaced by
the pumped-storage plant and energy available for pumping purposes at every plant.

The optimal allocation procedure is essentially a search for two power levels which define the
pumped-storage operation. The largest amount of energy available for pumped-storage
operation can be determined by summing up generation on a plant by plant basis (pumping
from the bottom, generating from the top).

In order to reduce the unserved energy remaining after thermal dispatch and at the same time
to improve the system reliability, the aggregate pumped-storage hydro plant is dispatched in
two modes:

First, the P-S plant is dispatched as though the P-S loading order were a continuation of
thermal loading order and P-S generating capacity is to be used for peaking service. This P-S
generation is considered compulsory (forced) operation and is uneconomical in that it requires
additional thermal generation through assignment of pumping duty without any reduction of
thermal generation. The pumping duty is assigned to the lowest cost thermal units.

After the P-S plant is dispatched for compulsory operation it is next considered for economic
operation. Economic operation is only possible when the cost of pumping water into the
reservoir is cheaper than the cost of thermal generation replaced by the P-S generation.
Pumping operation is economic only if:

Cpi < n • Cgj

where Cpi is the operating cost of thermal unit i participating in pumping operation and Cgj
is the operating cost of thermal unit j which is being off-loaded by the pumped-storage plant.
When this inequality is not satisfied the pumping operation stops.

278
The procedure can result in several different cases:

• First, the available energy for pumping may not be sufficient to meet the minimum
pumping requirements (for the pumped-storage plant as the last plant in the loading
order). In this case all the available energy for pumping is used and the procedure
stops.

• Second, pumping energy is available but the operation of P-S is not economic because
the cost of generation for the thermal plant to be replaced by P-S generation is lower
than that of the pumping plant adjusted for P-S efficiency. In this case the P-S
operation stops. The procedure also stops when all the P-S generation capability
(maximum feasible generation) is exhausted (the energy not needed is not pumped).

In the procedure presented above, the available energy for pumping in a period considered has
to be used in the same period. The procedure does not take into account the possibility of
storing energy within one period in order to use it in another subsequent period so to optimize
the generation from pumped-storage.

12.3. Maintenance scheduling

In the power sector, the scheduling of annual preventive maintenance for generating units is
required to ensure the reliable supply of electricity. Removing baseload generating units for
maintenance raises the operating cost of the system due to increased production from more
expensive units located higher in the loading (merit) order. Withdrawing units would also
increase the risk of load shedding, in other words, there is an associated decrease in the level
of generating system reliability.

There are several different techniques for allocating the annual maintenance of the generating
units within the annual subperiods (months, weeks etc.). In general, the techniques fall into
the following two categories:

• levelling the reserve capacity

• levelling the risk

It is necessary to perform the scheduling of annual maintenance for generating units, before
proceeding to the production simulation, in order to obtain realistic estimations of the fuel and
O&M costs. While the equivalent forced outage rate (FOR) of units is captured by the
probabilistic production costing methodology, the planned outage of units for maintenance is
scheduled in advance in order to minimize generation shortages. The maintenance scheduling
of thermal units is performed in the WASP-IV model by applying a technique of “levelling
the reserve capacity”. In this approach maintenance of a group of units is scheduled so as to
level the reserve capacity by placing planned outage of the units into periods of low demands.

While performing annual calculations, the production simulation algorithm (i.e. MERSIM)
computes the amount of capacity that will be on maintenance based on the required days of
scheduled outage for each unit. In WASP-III Plus, the user is not able to specify a
predetermined “fixed” maintenance schedule for a particular generating unit or set of units. In
order to make the maintenance scheduling more flexible MERSIM has been modified, in
WASP-IV, to allow the user to specify the period(s) within the year (month, season etc.) to
schedule maintenance for a particular unit, set of units, or for all units of the power system.

279
The main characteristics of the improved maintenance scheduling algorithm in WASP-IV are
the following:
• Possibility for "fixed" scheduling of maintenance for thermal units,
• Possibility to modify the maintenance schedule of generating units in any year of the
study,
• Possibility to cancel the "fixed" maintenance during the planning horizon,
• Possibility to split the total planned outage days of the annual maintenance of the
power plants into different subperiods within the annual simulation, and
• Possibility to print a maintenance outage table when the maximum output option is
selected in MERSIM.
It should be empasized that to activate the fixed maintenance schedule of the model,
additional information is required as input to MERSIM as explained in Chapter 7

280
 CHAPTER 13. ERROR AND WARNING MESSAGES IN THE WASP-IV CODE

13.1. Introduction

As mentioned in Chapters 2 to 9, some of the input information to the various WASP-IV

modules, including Common Case Data, is checked internally both by the user interface and
by the module programs in order to detect errors in the inputs read from data screens or
inconsistencies between information read from the files provided by preceding modules.
These checks have been introduced in the various modules for the following purposes:

(1) to avoid upsetting the logic of the program and waste of time in carrying out
calculations (and producing output files) using erroneous data;

(2) to warn the user about the potential sources of errors in the input data which may affect
the computations to be carried out by subsequent modules;

(3) to inform the user about errors in the input data which have been corrected by the
program in an attempt to complete the current run.

Detection of an error or inconsistency in input information by the respective module, leads to

printing of a message by the user interface on the computer screen or by the module’s
program in the output report during its execution.

When the user clicks the Back button to exit the input data screen, the user interface shows its
warning message and returns the control to the same screen to enter the correct data.

If the error or inconsistency in input data is not detected by the user interface and is included
in the input data file for the module (.DAT file), it should be detected by the built in check
procedures of the module’s program. Two types of messages can be printed in the output
report, according to the "severity" of the error or inconsistency detected:

Error messages: are included for purposes falling under category (1) listed above. They apply
in case the error or inconsistency detected affects the execution of the same module such as
using a wrong sequence in the input data; exceeding the capabilities of the module for
handling and storing information; inconsistencies in input information coming from other
modules; etc. This type of error message will normally lead to stop the execution of the
program.

Warning messages: are included for purposes listed under categories (2) and (3) above. Since
they do not endanger the internal execution of the module considered, the message is printed
and the program continues executing.

From the above classification, it is obvious that "error messages" appearing in the printout of
a WASP-IV module imply that the corresponding input data have to be revised and corrected
in order to remove the error signalized in the report and that the applicable module (or
modules) has (have) to be run again until the execution is completed without errors.

On the other hand, "warning messages" (though less severe) appearing in the report of any
WASP-IV module should not be overlooked by the user since removal of the error (or
inconsistency) might require correcting input data and re-running the same module before
proceeding with the execution of subsequent modules.

281
Input information is checked more or less sequentially as these data are read by the program.
In an attempt to reduce, as much as possible, the number of times the WASP-IV module has
to be re-run to remove the message(s) and proceed to the subsequent module, some of the
checks are carried out in a combined way so that the execution of the program is stopped after
all combined checks have been performed only if one of these “validity” checks is not
fulfilled. This is particularly important for the initial phase of input data validation and
debugging of programs of a WASP study (see Section 10.2) when several errors in input data
are likely to be detected.

The following sections describe the error and warning messages of the WASP-IV modules
(from LOADSY through REPROBAT), including Common Case Data, in the same order as
they are described in the manual.

Depending on the module, one or two tables with different categories of error and warning
messages will be shown for each module:

warning messages shown on the display when the user interface finds an erroneous data item
in the input data screen;

error or warning messages printed in the module report when errors or internal inconsistencies
are discovered during the execution of the module.

As the input data (.DAT) files for all modules are created automatically by the user interface,
using in a consistent manner the input data read for the current module and the information
transferred from the preceding modules, some error (or warning) messages of the second
category may occur only accidentally, in the following conditions:

the user modify incorrectly an input data (.DAT) file; this type of files may be modified only
exceptionally and only by experienced users;

the user copy input files from one case to another with other means than the internal
procedures of WASP-IV;

the user attempts to execute a module before the successful execution of all preceding
modules in the normal WASP-IV sequence; to avoid this situation, it should be remembered
that the output file of each module must be checked carefully before starting the execution of
subsequent modules.

The tables describing the interface warning messages show the text of the message and the
action(s) to be taken by the user to correct the wrong input data.

The most error (or warning) messages printed at the execution of the module have the
following general format:

***** A IE ***** EC TEXT

According to this, an error (or warning) message starts (in column 1 of the line) with five
asterisks (*), followed by a letter (A) identifying the module involved (L for LOADSY, F for
FIXSYS, etc.) and a number (IE) corresponding to the code number assigned to the message.
This is followed by five asterisks, a number (EC) corresponding to the counter of accumulated
errors in the module and finally, the message (TEXT). Depending on the error involved, the

282
message may occupy one or several lines of the printout as shown in the tables of this chapter
and in Figure 13.1.

The tables for these messages show: the general form of the message on the top of the table,
number (IE) of each message, its description (TEXT), type (error or warning) and which
action(s) should be taken by the user for further runs.

Some tables have notes indicating the errors that can occur only if the user has directly
modified the input data (.DAT) file for the current module or if he has interfered in the
automatic transfer of information between modules.

Regarding the instructions for the user given in the tables, it should be noted that they
correspond to those runs when an error or inconsistency exists in the data and when the case
under study respects the capabilities of the WASP-IV code as summarized in Table 1.1 and
the comments and notes included in the tables describing the input data of each module. Case
studies not respecting these constraints can lead at Fortran run-time errors during the
execution of the module that cannot be analyzed by WASP-IV and, therefore, are not included
in the tables from the following sections.

13.2. Messages for common case data

The data entered in Common Case Data screen are fully checked by the user interface, which
for erroneous data prints on the display of the computer the warning messages shown in Table
13.1 and return the control to the same screen to make the necessary corrections.

Table 13.1 User interface warning messages for Common Case Data of WASP-IV
TEXT ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

Valid no. of years of study are 1 to 30 Correct the values of the first or/and last year of
the study.

Please type the No. of Periods in the range: Correct the value of Number of periods.
1 to 12

Please enter the No. of Hydro Conditions Correct the value of Number of hydro-
in the range: 1 to 5 conditions.

Probability No. # is empty Correct the value of hydro-condition probability.

The Sum of Probabilities is not 1 Correct the values of hydro-condition

probabilities.

13.3. Messages for LOADSY

Table 13.2 shows the warning messages printed on the display of the computer when the user
tries to enter inconsistent data in various LOADSY screens while Table 13.3 lists the
messages connected with erroneous input data found at the execution of the LOADSY
module. This table starts with the general form for all messages (as described in the
introduction), followed by a description of each message containing: the code number (IE)
assigned to the message; the text to be printed by the program; the type of message; and the

283
instructions for the user how to overcome the problem in case the message appears in the
LOADSY printout.

Everything in the TEXT (characters, blanks, periods, etc.) as shown in Table 13.3
corresponds, as close as possible, to the printing formats in the program, except that
characters (#) are used here to identify digits to be printed by the computer. It can also be seen
in the table that all messages are of the error type; thus, terminating the program execution.
All other information in Table 13.3 (complemented with the indications given in Section 3.2
and Table 3.1) is considered to be self-explanatory.

Table 13.2 User interface warning messages for LOADSY module of WASP-IV

TEXT ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

Please Enter Correct Year Year to be entered must be consistent with the
defined study period.

Not a valid Input Correct the inconsistent input data.

Please first select the year to be deleted Before clicking the Del button, select the year
to be deleted in the left-side field of the screen.

Please Enter the Peak Load Ratios for Enter the peak load ratios for the year just
#### added in the top-left field.

Please first enter the number of points of Before entering the load/duration data for the
this period! points on the LDC, specify the number of
points of the period.

284
Table 13.3 Messages in the LOADSY module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR ALL MESSAGES: ***** L IE ***** EC TEXT

DESCRIPTION OF MESSAGES
IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER
1* NO. OF PERIODS = ### (MAX PERMISSIBLE = 12) Error Correct value of number of periods on record type-A in
[Link] file and rerun the program.
2 NO. OF FOURIER COEFFICIENTS = ### (MAX. PERMISSIBLE = Error Correct value of NOCOF in LOADSY INPUT screen and rerun the
100) program.
3** CHECK VALUE ON INDEX RECORD ### Error Revise record sequence and INDEX values in [Link] file,
correct and rerun the program.
4** NP MUST BE EQUAL NPER FOR FIRST YEAR OF STUDY, NP = ### Error Correct value of NP for first year on record type-4 in [Link]
NPER = ### file and rerun the program.
5** NP EXCEEDS MAXIMUM OF NPER, NP = ### NPER = ### Error Correct value of NP for applicable year on record type-4 in
[Link] file and rerun the program.
6** SEQUENCE OF PERIODS TO BE CHANGED IS WRONG, IPER (###) Error Normally, this message can’t occur with WASP-IV program version.
= ### Variable IPER doesn’t exist anymore in this version.
7** NO. OF LDC POINTS (NPTS) OF PERIOD TO BE ASSIGNED (IPER) Error Normally, this message can’t occur with WASP-IV program version.
AND PERIOD TO BE COPIED (IO) INCONSISTENT, IPER = ### Variables IPER and IO don’t exist anymore in this version.
NPTS = ### IO = ### NPTS = ###
8** PERIOD TO BE COPIED (IO) EXCEEDS PERIOD TO BE ASSIGNED Error Normally, this message can’t occur with WASP-IV program version.
(IPER), IO = ### IPER = ### Variables IO and IPER don’t exist anymore in this version.
99 ERROR(S) ACCUMULATED THROUGH THIS RUN Error Correct the indicated errors as instructed above.

* These errors are due to input data coming from preceding modules (from Common Case Data, in this case); they can occur only accidentally, if the user interferes in
the automatic transfer of information between modules by the interface.

** These errors refer to own data of the current module but they can occur only accidentally if the user modifies the original [Link] input data file created
automatically by the interface.

285
13.4. Messages for FIXSYS and VARSYS

The FIXSYS error messages are listed and described in Table 13.2 which is also self-
explanatory (complemented with the respective explanations given in Section 4.2 and Table 4.1).

In addition to the comments made in Section 13.2, also valid in this case, the following
remarks can be made about Table 13.2:

- The TEXT of some messages includes characters (AAAA) to identify alphanumeric

variables to be printed by the program.

- Message (IE=) 6 may affect thermal plants or hydroelectric projects. It occurs when
any of the following conditions are encountered for the indicated thermal power
plant (or hydro project) AAAA:

a) for thermal plants, when the input data for plant AAAA specifies the plant
with either MWB = 0.0 or MWB > MWC of the same plant.

b) for hydro projects, when project AAAA (for the period and hydro condition
involved) has inflow energy equal to, or greater than, the total generating
capacity of the project (i.e. leading to printing of error message IE=11 as
described below) and the resulting base block of capacity (MWB) calculated
by HYRUN is greater than the total available capacity (HMWC) specified for
the same project. In this case, the resulting peak capacity block (MWP) of the
project would be negative and consequently the characteristics of the
composite hydro plant that includes this project would be wrong.

Detection of this condition does not lead to stop the program execution, i.e. it is
treated by FIXSYS as a warning message, so as to allow checking of more input
data in the same run. However, this message has been classified as an "error"
message in Table 13.2 in order to warn the user that the message should be removed
from the FIXSYS report (correcting the applicable input data and re-running
FIXSYS) before proceeding to execute subsequent modules. In particular, if the
message affects some hydro projects, the results of CONGEN and MERSIM would
be wrong since erroneous values of the composite hydro plant characteristics would
be used. Furthermore, in MERSIM whenever the condition MWB = 0.0 or MWB
> MWC is encountered for a thermal plant, this is treated by MERSIM as an error
message.

- Messages (IE=) 11, 12 appear in the FIXSYS printout when the respective
condition explained in the TEXT (see Table 13.2) occurs for the associated hydro
project. Similar to message (IE=6), these messages are also treated as warning
messages (i.e., execution of the program continues) to permit checking of more
input data in the same run, but they have been classified as "warning" messages to
indicate that the user should verify the input data and try to remove the message
before proceeding to run subsequent modules. It should be noted that, depending on
the specific characteristics of the hydro project, it may not be possible to remove the
message for all hydro conditions and periods involved. If so, neglect the message
and proceed with subsequent WASP modules.

286
Table 13.4a (page 1) Messages in the FIXSYS Module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR ALL MESSAGES: **** F IE ***** EC TEXT

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES:

IE TEXT TYPE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

1 NO. OF PERIODS =#### (MAX. PERMISSIBLE =12) Error Correct value of NPER in data record type-A and
rerun the program

2 TOTAL NO. OF THERMAL PLANTS =#### (MIN. = 1, MAX. PERMISSIBLE = 88) Error Correct value of NTHPL on data record type-A
and rerun the program

3 NO. OF HYDRO CONDITIONS = ## (MAX. PERMISSIBLE =5) Error Correct value of IHYDIS on data record type-A
and rerun the program

4 ERROR IN HYDROPROBABILITY VALUE NO.## (MUST BE > 0.0) Error Correct value of PROBH(##) on data record
type-A and rerun the program

5 ERROR IN HYDROPROBABILITIES SUM = ##.### (TOTAL MUST BE = 1.0) Error Correct values of PROBH on data record type-A
and rerun the program

Correct applicable values on: record type-B for

thermal plant AAAA, or record type-2b for
6 CHECK MWB AGAINST MWC OF PLANT AAAA Error hydroelectric project AAAA and rerun the
program

7 NAME OF HYDRO PROJECT AAAA INCONSISTENT WITH HYDRO TYPE Error Correct value of TNAME on record type-2a for
NAMES hydro project AAAA and rerun the program

287
 Table 13.4b (page 2) Messages in the FIXSYS Module of WASP-IV

IE TEXT TYPE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

8 CHECK VALUE ON INDEX RECORD#### Error Revise sequence and INDEX values of the
input data, correct and rerun the program

9 RECORD(S) FOLLOWING INDEX ## IS/ ARE MISSING Error Include missing input data for hydro project
(or pumped storage project) and rerun the
program

10 INDEX OF THERMAL PLANT ### CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION OR Error Check index (NS) on applicable data record
RETIREMENT OR # OF RETIRED UNITS IS WRONG type-3, correct and rerun the program

11 WARNING INFLOW ENERGY EXCEEDS MAX. GEN. CAPABILITY IN ## Warning Check and correct input data on record type-
HYDRO CONDITIONS 2b for associated hydro project in period and
hydro condition indicated with KEY=5 or
(KEY = 5); RED. BY PROGRAM

12 WARNING MINIMUM REQUIRED ENERGY EXCEEDS INFLOW ENERGY Warning KEY=6 and rerun the program. If, owing to
IN ## HYDRO CONDITIONS the project characteristics, the message
cannot be removed neglect the message and
(KEY = 6) proceed to other WASP modules.

Verify ISPIN and capacities of plant AAAA

if L.O. is to be calculated by MERSIM. If
data incorrect, modify it and rerun the
program. If data correct, or L.O. is given by
13 PLANT AAAA SPECIFIED AS SINGLE BLOCK WITH ISPIN > 0 Warning the user, neglect this message and proceed to
other modules.

14 CHECK VALUE OF NID = ### ON RECORD TYPE - X (PERMISS. 0 TO 9) Error Correct the value on record type -X and rerun
the program.

288
Table 13.4c (page 3) Messages in the FIXSYS Module of WASP-IV

IE TEXT TYPE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

15 NUMBER OF GROUP-LIMITATIONS = ## (MAX. PERMISSIBLE =5) Error Correct the value of NGROUPLM on record
type-C and rerun the program

16 INDEX OF GROUP LIMITATIONS WRONG = ## (MUST BE 1 TO 5) Error Check the values of MEASIND, correct and
rerun the program

17 PLANT INDEX #### OF REAL EMISSION ## IS WRONG Error Check the plant index, correct and rerun the
program (range, descending order)

18 PLANT INDEX #### OF GROUP LIMITATION ## IS WRONG Error Check the plant index, correct and rerun the
program (range, descending order)

19 COMPOSITE INSTALLED CAP. OF HYDRO TYPE AAAA IS #### MW Error Check the installed capacities of hydro
projects retired, correct and rerun the
program

20 COMPOSITE INSTALLED CAP. OF P-S PLANT PUMP IS #### MW Error Check the installed capacities of P-S projects
retired, correct and rerun the program

21 MAX. FEASIBLE ENERGY GEN. OF PERIOD ## EXCEEDS MAX. INSTALLED Warning Check the period max. feasible generation by
GEN. CAPABILITY, RED BY PROGRAM pumped storage plant against installed cap.

22 MAX. FEASIBLE ENERGY GEN. OF PERIOD ## EXCEEDS MAX. PERIOD Warning Check the period max. feasible generation by
GEN. CAPABILITY, RED BY PROGRAM pumped storage plant against period
generation

24 GEN. CAPACITY IN PERIOD ##GREATER THAN INSTALLED CAPACITY Warning Check the input data for hydro project

25 AVAILABLE CAP. IN PERIOD ## FOR HYDROCOND. ## GREATER THAN Warning Check the input data for P-S project
INSTALLED CAPACITY

289
Table 13.4d (page 4) Messages in the FIXSYS Module of WASP-IV

IE TEXT TYPE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

26 CHECK SUM OR IND. PERIOD RATIO OF GROUP LIMITATION ## Error Correct the values and rerun the program

98 ERROR(S) ACCUMULATED THROUGH THIS YEAR #### Error Follow the instructions according to the
errors encountered

99 ERROR(S) ACCUMULATED THROUGH THIS RUN Error Correct the indicated errors as instructed
above

290
- Message (IE=) 13 occurs when the indicated thermal plant AAAA has been
specified as a single block unit (MWB=MWC) but with spinning reserve (ISPIN)
not equal 0. This is to warn the user of the possible consequence that such a
definition may have on the calculations to be performed later by the MERSIM
module and more specifically, if MERSIM is requested to generate the loading
order (L.O.) to be used in the simulation of system operation. If, on the contrary,
the L.O. to be used by MERSIM is completely specified by the user (fixed L.O.),
neglect this message and proceed to subsequent modules.

- Messages (IE=) 15-18 are related to Group Limitation and Real Emission inputs.
These errors can be rectified following the instructions in Table 13.2.

- Messages (IE=) 19 and 20 occur when the indicated composite hydro (or pumped
storage) plant AAAA has negative installed capacity due to wrong retirements.
The inputs of all hydro (pumped storage) projects should be checked to remove
the message.

- Messages (IE=) 21-25 are warnings and would occur when there is some unusual
input for energies or capacities of hydro (or pumped storage) projects. The
results should be reviewed carefully and if found acceptable these warning
messages may be ignored.

291
The VARSYS input data are also checked by the user interface and if they are wrong some
warning messages are shown on the computer display when the user clicks the Back button to
leave the current screen. The interface warning messages for VARSYS module are shown in
Table 13.6 while Table 13.7 summarizes the error (or warning) messages printed in the
VARSYS report at the execution of the module. The remarks made in Section 13.4
(concerning Table 13.5) for similar error messages in FIXSYS module are also applicable to
the information presented in Table 13.7. Other messages, e.g. Messages (IE=) 26 and 27 are
self-explanatory and can be removed by following the instructions given in Table 13.7. See
also the indications given in Section 5.2 and Table 5.1 which complement the information
presented in Table 13.7.

Table 13.6 User interface warning messages for VARSYS module of WASP-IV
TEXT ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

Max no. of thermal candidates is 12 Observe the maximum capabilities of the

model.

Plant with this name already exists Change the name of the thermal power plant
or hydro/P-S project intended to be added to
the system.

Selected no. of plants is already equal to No more plants can be selected for the
specified no. of plants for this pollutant respective pollutant.

No. of plants ## and the count of plant Correct the respective mismatch.
names ## do not match

Please specify number of group limits Enter the number of group-limitations in

VARSYS_Input screen, which is ‘0’ while
the user tries to go to subsequent
VARSYS_Group Limits screen.

Selected no. of plants is already equal to No more plants can be selected for the
specified no. of plants for this group limit respective group limit.

292
Table 13.7. (page 1) Messages in the VARSYS module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR ALL MESSAGES: **** V IE ***** EC TEXT

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES:

IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

1* NO. OF PERIODS = ### (MAX. PERMISSIBLE =12) Error Correct value of number of periods on record type-A in
[Link] file and rerun the program.
2** TOTAL NO. OF THERMAL ALTERNATIVE PLANTS =#### Error Correct value of NTHPL on record type-A in [Link] file
(MAX. PERMISSIBLE =12 OR 11, WHEN P-S IS USED) and rerun the program.
3* NO. OF HYDROCONDITIONS = ## (MAX. PERMISSIBLE = Error Correct value of number of hydro-conditions on record type-A in
5) [Link] file and rerun the program.

4* ERROR IN HYDROPROBABILITY VALUE NO. ## (MUST Error Correct value of PROBH(##) on record type-A in [Link]
BE > 0.0) file and rerun the program.

5* ERROR IN HYDROPROBABILITIES SUM = ##.### (TOTAL Error Correct values of PROBH on record type-A in [Link] file
MUST BE = 1.0) and rerun the program.

6 CHECK MWB AGAINST MWC OF PLANT AAAA Error Correct applicable values in VARSYS_Input screen for thermal
plant AAAA, or in VARSYS_Hydro Plants screen for hydro
project AAAA, and rerun the program.
7** NAME OF HYDRO PROJECT AAAA INCONSISTENT WITH Error Correct value of NAMET on record type-2a in [Link] file
HYDRO TYPE NAMES for hydro project AAAA and rerun the program.
11 WARNING INFLOW ENERGY EXCEEDS MAX. GEN. Warning Check and correct appropriate data in VARSYS_Hydro Plants
CAPABILITY IN ## HYDROCONDITIONS (KEY = 5); RED. screen for the associated hydro project in period and hydro-
BY PROGRAM condition indicated with KEY=5 or KEY=6 and rerun the program.
12 WARNING MINIMUM REQUIRED ENERGY EXCEEDS Warning Otherwise neglect the message and proceed to other WASP
INFLOW ENERGY IN ## HYDROCONDITIONS (KEY = 6) modules (see Section 13.4 for details)

293
 Table 13.7. (page 2) Messages in the VARSYS Module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR ALL MESSAGES: **** V IE ***** EC TEXT

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES:

IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

13 PLANT AAAA SPECIFIED AS SINGLE BLOCK WITH Warning Verify ISPIN and capacities of plant AAAA in VARSYS_Input
ISPIN > 0 screen if L.O. is to be calculated by MERSIM. If data incorrect,
modify it and rerun the program. If data correct, or L.O. is given
by the user, neglect the message and proceed to other modules.
14** CHECK NO. OF AAAA PROJECTS = ###, AGAINST Error Correct the number of hydro projects of type AAAA on record
INPUT OF MAXIMUM = ### type-A in [Link] file and rerun the program.
15* NUMBER OF GROUP-LIMITATIONS = ## (MAX. Error Correct the value of NGROUPLM on record type-C in
PERMISSIBLE = 5) [Link] file and rerun the program.
16 INDEX OF GROUP-LIMITATIONS WRONG = ## (MUST Error Check type of group-limitation in VARSYS_Group Limits
BE 1 TO 5) screen, correct and rerun the program.
17** PLANT INDEX ### OF REAL EMISSION ## IS WRONG Error Check the plant index on record type-Db in [Link] file,
correct and rerun the program.
18** PLANT INDEX ### OF GROUP LIMITATION ## IS Error Check the plant index on record type-Eb in [Link] file,
WRONG correct and rerun the program.
19 INSTALLED CAP. OF PROJECT ### OF HYDRO TYPE Error Check the installed capacity of hydro project (probably negative
AAAA IS ###### MW value) in VARSYS_Hydro Plants screen, correct and rerun the
program.
20 INSTALLED CAP. OF PROJECT ### OF P-S PLANT PUMP Error Check the installed capacity of P-S project (probably negative
IS ###### MW value) in VARSYS_Pump Storage screen, correct and rerun the
program.
21 WARNING: MAX. FEASIBLE ENERGY GEN. OF PERIOD Warning Check the period max. feasible generation by pumped-storage
## EXCEEDS MAX. INSTALLED GEN. CAPABILITY, plant against installed capability in VARSYS_Pump Storage
RED. BY PROGRAM screen.

294
 Table 13.7. (page 3) Messages in the VARSYS Module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR ALL MESSAGES: **** F IE ***** EC TEXT

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES:

IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

22 WARNING: MAX. FEASIBLE ENERGY GEN. OF PERIOD Warning Check the period max. feasible generation by pumped-storage
## EXCEEDS MAX. PERIOD GEN. CAPABILITY, RED. BY plant against period generation in VARSYS_Pump Storage
PROGRAM screen.
24 WARNING: GENERATING CAPACITY IN PERIOD ## Warning Check the input data for P-S project in VARSYS_Pump
GREATER THAN INSTALLED CAPACITY: ! ! ! Storage screen.
25 WARNING: AVAILABLE CAP. IN PERIOD ## OF Warning Check the input data for applicable hydro project in
HYDROCOND. ## GREATER THAN INSTALLED VARSYS_Hydro Plants screen.
CAPACITY: ! ! !
26 CHECK NO. OF AAAA PROJECTS = ##, AGAINST Error A maximum of 30 projects for each of the two hydro types can
POSSIBLE MAXIMUM OF 30 be included in VARSYS. Correct the input and rerun the
program.
27 CHECK NO. OF P-S PROJECTS = ##, AGAINST Error A maximum of 30 P-S projects can be included in VARSYS.
POSSIBLE MAXIMUM OF 30 Correct the input and rerun the program.
99 ERROR(S) ACCUMULATED THROUGH THIS RUN Error Correct the indicated errors as instructed above.

* These errors are due to input data coming from preceding modules; they can occur only accidentally, if modules are not run properly or if the user interferes in the
automatic transfer of information between modules by the interface.

** These errors refer to own data of the current module but they can occur only accidentally if the user modifies the original [Link] input data file created
automatically by the interface.

295
13.5. Messages for CONGEN
The error and warning messages in CONGEN are summarized in Table 13.8 in the same way
as for the previous WASP-IV modules but indicating in addition if the messages is produced
by the main CONGEN program or by its subroutines.
13.5.1. Messages coming from MAIN
These messages follow the general form shown at the top of Table 13.8. The following
comments can be made about these messages:
Messages (IE=) 1 to 8 are self-explanatory.
Message (IE=) 9 is printed along with the information of capacity range in critical period and
committed capacity specified in critical period for the year (see Fig. 6.8, page 1) when the
condition explained in the TEXT occurs. If some of the accepted configurations for the
respective year appear in the printout marked with message (IE=) 12, the user should modify
the value of maximum permissible reserve margin applicable for the year in CONGEN input
data screen and rerun the module before proceeding to execute the corresponding MERSIM
run. In some cases, however, this situation cannot be avoided without eliminating
configurations of interest for the user and, if so, the user should be aware of the possible
inaccuracy in the calculations of LOLP and energy-not-served carried out by the MERSIM
module.
Message (IE=) 10: If the CONGEN run has been successfully completed and the accepted
configurations for each year are satisfactory, the user may ignore this message and proceed to
subsequent modules. For further CONGEN runs (or if the current run is not satisfactory),
correct the applicable constraints on the maximum reserve margin before rerunning the
program.
Message (IE=) 11: This message is self-explanatory. The total number of plants in a system
may be reduced to fit the maximum number that can be handled in WASP by lumping
together some of the similar plants in FIXSYS.
Message (IE=) 13 is also self-explanatory. Although it corresponds to a warning message
(execution continues), the program should be rerun with corrected data before proceeding to
subsequent modules. The execution of MERSIM and DYNPRO is controlled by the latest
CONGEN file so that their execution is stopped if no states are defined in the CONGEN file
for a given year.
Message (IE=) 14 tells the user that some of the possible configurations for the applicable
year could not be examined by the program. In principle, it is suggested to revise and modify
the constraints on number of units (or projects) of each candidate plant, and/or reserve
margins, and rerun the program before proceeding to MERSIM.
Message (IE=) 15 is also a warning message, which requires correction of input data and
rerunning CONGEN before proceeding to MERSIM/DYNPRO, particularly since DYNPRO
cannot handle more than 5000 configurations (states) of the system in a single run.
Message (IE=) 16 is printed by CONGEN at the end of the report and if either of the
messages (IE=) 12 or 17 is also included in the printout. The last line of the text (see Table
13.8) gives the cumulative number of times (#####) that messages 12 or 17 are encountered
in the printout.
Message (IE=) 17: This message appears connected to a given configuration to tell the user
that the number of Fourier coefficients defined in LOADSY is less than the minimum
required (NOCOF) for accurate calculation of LOLP for this configuration. If the same

296
message applies to several configurations of interest for the user and if the value of NOCOF is
considerably lower than (or eventually equal to) 100, correct the LOADSY input data and
rerun LOADSY and then CONGEN. High values of NOCOF (> 100) normally occur when
the installed capacity of the configurations exceeds the critical capacity for the Fourier
method and they should be treated as explained for the error message (IE=) 12.

Messages (IE=) 19-21 are self-explanatory.

Messages (IE=) 98, 99: The description in Table 13.8 is self-explanatory; however, no TYPE
has been indicated for any of these messages since their classification is dependent on the type
of other messages appearing in the printout for the run.

13.5.2. Special message coming from subroutine READFC

This is listed at the bottom of Table 13.8 (page 4) and corresponds to errors detected by
subroutine READFC while reading the files created by FIXSYS and VARSYS. The message
identifies the respective file by its number (10 for FIXSYS and 11 for VARSYS), the
subroutine where the error was detected, and the number of the record involved.

This type of error occurs when the first record expected to be read (from the applicable file)
by the corresponding subroutine does not contain the right information. Since they are
normally connected with the system control of the file, it is suggested to contact the WASP
analyst to solve the problem.

297
Table 13.8. (page 1) Messages in the CONGEN module of WASP-IV

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES COMING FROM MAIN

IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER
1* FIXED SYSTEM & VARIABLE ALTERNATIVE FILES Error Correct input data of FIXSYS or VARSYS, rerun applicable
INCOMPATIBLE program and rerun CONGEN.
NUMBER OF SEASONS IN FIXSYS = ## IN VARSYS = ##
2* FIXED SYSTEM & VARIABLE ALTERNATIVE FILES Error Same instructions as for error message 1 above.
INCOMPATIBLE
NO. OF HYDRO CONDITIONS IN FIXSYS = ## IN VARSYS = ##
3* FIXED SYSTEM & VARIABLE ALTERNATIVE FILES Error Same instructions as for error message 1 above.
INCOMPATIBLE
NAME OF HYDRO TYPE ## IN FIXSYS = AAAA IN VARSYS =
4* LOAD FILE INCOMPATIBLE WITH FIXED AND VARIABLE Error Correct input data of LOADSY or FIXSYS/VARSYS, rerun
SYSTEM FILES applicable program(s) and resubmit CONGEN.
NO. OF SEASONS IN LOADSY = ## IN VARSYS = ##
5* FIXED SYSTEM & LOAD DESCRIPTION FILES INCOMPATIBLE Error Correct input data of LOADSY or FIXSYS, rerun applicable
CURRENT YEAR IN FIXSYS = #### IN LOADSY = #### program and rerun CONGEN.

6** CHECK VALUE ON INDEX RECORD ### Error Revise record sequence and INDEX values of the
[Link] file, correct and rerun the program.
7 NO. OF H-PROJ. #### OF HYDRO TYPE AAAA GREATER THAN Error Correct no. of hydro projects of indicated type in the
MAX NO. OF ALTERN PROJ. ### applicable year in CONGEN input data screen and rerun the
module.
8 HYDRO PROJECT ### OF HYDRO TYPE AAAA VIOLATES Error Correct no. of hydro project of indicated type in CONGEN
AVAILABLE YEAR YYYY input data screen respecting the year of availability specified
in VARSYS and rerun the program.
9 MAX RES MARGIN PERMITS INSTALLED CAPACITIES ABOVE Warning See Section 13.6.1 for instructions.
CAPACITY CRITICAL TO FOURIER METHOD (PEAK + 2 * MIN.
LOAD)

298
Table 13.8. (page 2) Messages in the CONGEN module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR ALL MESSAGES: ***** C IE ***** EC TEXT

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES COMING FROM MAIN (cont.)

IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

10 CAPACITY OF CONFIGURATION ABOVE CAPACITY RANGE, BUT Warning This message applies when the minimum configuration in
WILL BE ACCEPTED the first year of study exceeds indicated constraints. It may
also occur in any subsequent year of study provided that
related configuration is identical to an accepted
configuration in preceding year. See Section 13.6.1 for
instructions.
11* TOTAL NO. OF PLANTS IN FIXSYS AND VARSYS = ####; Error Correct the input data and rerun the relevant modules. See
(THERMAL + HYDRO(2) + PUMP(1)); Section 13.6.1 for instructions.
MAX. PERMISSIBLE FOR THERMAL + HYDRO(2) ONLY = ### + 1
FOR PUMP
12 INSTALLED CAPACITY EXCEEDS CRITICAL CAP. Warning See Section 13.6.1 for instructions (messages IE=9 and
IE=12).
13 ***NO STATES DEFINED*** Warning Correct constraints for applicable year in CONGEN input
data screen and rerun the program.
14 *** EXCEEDS 500 *** Warning See Section 13.6.1 for instructions.

15 TOTAL NO. OF CONFIGURATIONS = #### (MAX. PERMISSIBLE = Warning Modify constraints in CONGEN input data screen and
5000) rerun the program.

299
Table 13.8. (page 3) Messages in the CONGEN module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR ALL MESSAGES: ***** C IE ***** EC TEXT

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES COMING FROM MAIN (cont.)

IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

16 ***** WARNING: IF APPLICABLE, EITHER Warning This applies when error message IE=12 and IE=17
1 INCREASE NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. TO MINIMUM are encountered. The text is self-explanatory. See
REQUIRED FOR IMPROVING THE LOLP-CALCULATION Section 13.6.1 for more details.
AND/OR
2 THE INSTALLED CAPACITY OF THE MARKED
CONFIGURATION(S) IS EQUAL OR GREATER THAN THE CAPACITY
CRITICAL TO FOURIER METHOD (PEAK + 2*MIN. LOAD).
LOLP IS SET TO ZERO (AS IS ALSO UNSERVED ENERGY IN MERSIM)
NUMBER OF MARKED CONFIGURATION(S) FOR BOTH CASES: #####
17 MINIMUM OF NOCOF MUST BE #### Warning See Section 13.6.1 for instructions.

19 GIVEN CRITICAL HYDROCONDITION = ## EXCEEDS NUMBER OF H.C. Warning Correct the value of Critical hydro-condition in
DEFINED IN FIXSYS OR VARSYS = ##. (RESET TO *1* BY PROGRAM) CONGEN input data screen and rerun the
program.
20 NO. OF P-S PLANT #### GREATER THAT MAX NO. OF ALTERN P-S Error Correct the number of P-S projects in the
PLANTS applicable year in CONGEN input data screen
and rerun the program.
21 P-S PLANT #### VIOLATES AVAILABLE YEAR #### Error Correct the number of P-S projects in CONGEN
input data screen respecting the year of
availability in VARSYS and rerun the program.

300
Table 13.8. (page 4) Messages in the CONGEN module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR ALL MESSAGES: ***** C IE ***** EC TEXT

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES COMING FROM MAIN (cont.)

IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

98 ERROR(S) AND/OR WARNING(S) ACCUMULATED THROUGH THIS --- Follow instructions according to message in the printout.
YEAR
99 ERROR(S) AND/OR WARNING(S) ACCUMULATED THROUGH THIS --- Same instructions as for error 98 above.
RUN

FORM AND DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL ERROR MESSAGES COMING FROM SUB-ROUTINES

OF ERROR MESSAGE TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

SUBROUTINE

READFC ERROR ON FILE ## COMING FROM READFC, IR=### Error See Section 13.6.2 for instructions.

* These errors are due to input data coming from preceding modules; they can occur only accidentally, if modules are not run properly or if the user interferes in the
automatic transfer of information between modules by the interface.

** These errors refer to own data of the current module but they can occur only accidentally if the user modifies the original [Link] input data file created
automatically by the interface.

301
 13.6. Messages for MERSIM

Table 13.9 shows the warning messages displayed by the interface when the user tries to enter
inconsistent data in various MERSIM screen and Table 13.10 lists the messages printed by
MERSIM module, connected with erroneous input data.

Table 13.9 User interface warning messages for MERSIM module of WASP-IV
TEXT ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

L.O. Data Incomplete Complete entering the L.O. in User Specified

Loading Order screen.

Data change for this item possible only for Attempt to “Change LO and Spinning
future years Reserves” or “Change Group Limits” for base
year in screen MERSIM Data for Future
Years. Only “Maintenance Schedule” (3rd
button) can be changed in this screen for the
base year.

Please first select the plant to specify its The message is self explanatory.
maintenance schedule

Please give maintenance schedule for #### Enter the days of maintenance par periods of
the year for the selected #### thermal plant.

### already exists in the maintenance For thermal plant #### the maintenance
schedule list schedule was already entered. Select a new
plant, if necessary

Please first select the plant in the Select a plant in the maintenance schedule list
maintenance schedule list to be removed (ID) before clicking the left arrow control

13.6.1. Messages coming from MAIN

Although the descriptions of these messages as given in Table 13.10 are considered self-
explanatory, some additional comments are necessary since correction of the errors at this
stage may involve more than one module.

Messages (IE=) 1 to 6, 8 to 10 normally occur when any of the LOADSY, FIXSYS or

VARSYS modules has been rerun after successful execution of CONGEN (in which some of
these validity checks are equally performed) and new values for the applicable variables are
used in the run. Removal of these error messages from the MERSIM printout usually requires
correcting input data and rerunning the applicable program(s) and then resubmitting MERSIM
for execution. As stated in Table 13.10, it may be necessary to rerun CONGEN before
executing the new MERSIM run.

Message (IE=) 7: In principle the maximum number of plants to define in FIXSYS is: 90
minus the total number of VARSYS plants, but it is recommended to reduce the number to be

302
used in a case study in order to decrease the computer time required for the simulation of
system operation and the length of printouts.

Message (IE=) 13 occurs when in the loading order (record type-2a) the peak block of the
given plant (the plant number appears in the message) is considered before the corresponding
base block or when a peak block appears in the loading order although MWB=MWC for the
given plant (single block plants must be specified in the L.O. by the base block only).

Message (IE=) 16: If this message appears in the MERSIM printout, the user should verify
that the number of Fourier coefficients used for the simulations carried out in the current run
corresponds to the intended value and that it is the same for simulations previously
performed.

Message (IE=) 17 informs the user that the current EXPANALT file does not contain any
configuration for the indicated year and that the user should rerun CONGEN before executing
MERSIM again.

Message (IE=) 18, 19 indicate to the user that the loading order instructions are inconsistent;
i.e. that the variable NOLO has been specified with a value of "1", but no basic economic
loading order is included in the input data (for IE=18), or that the values of NOLO and
SPNVAL are inconsistent as indicated by the text of this message (for IE=19).

Messages (IE=) 98, 99: Same remarks as in Section 13.6.1.

13.6.2. Special message coming from subroutine READFM and DIVLIM

Same remarks as in Section 13.6.2 for similar errors in CONGEN.

Message (IE=) 25: see description in Table 13.10.

303
 Table 13.10. (page 1) Messages in the MERSIM module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR ALL MESSAGES: ***** M IE ***** EC TEXT

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES COMING FROM MAIN

IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

1* FIXED SYSTEM & VARIABLE ALTERNATIVE FILES INCOMPATIBLE Error Correct input data to FIXSYS or VARSYS, rerun
NUMBER OF SEASONS IN FIXSYS = ## IN VARSYS = ## applicable program. Rerun first CONGEN and
then MERSIM.
2* FIXED SYSTEM & VARIABLE ALTERNATIVE FILES INCOMPATIBLE Error Same instructions as for error message 1 above.
NO. OF HYDROCONDITIONS IN FIXSYS = ## IN VARSYS = ##
3* FIXED SYSTEM & VARIABLE ALTERNATIVE FILES INCOMPATIBLE Error Same instructions as for error message 1 above.
PROBABILITY OF HYDROCONDITION ## IN FIXSYS = #.###
IN VARSYS = #.###
4* FIXED SYSTEM & VARIABLE ALTERNATIVE FILES INCOMPATIBLE Error Same instructions as for error message 1 above.
NAME OF HYDRO TYPE ## IN FIXSYS = AAAA IN VARSYS = AAAA
5* FIXED SYSTEM & VARIABLE ALTERNATIVE FILES INCOMPATIBLE Error Same instructions as for error message 1 above.
OPER AND MAINT COSTS OF HYDRO PLANT ## IN FIXSYS = #.###
IN VARSYS = #.###
6* LOAD FILE INCOMPATIBLE WITH FIXED & VARIABLE SYSTEM FILES Error Correct data in LOADSY or FIXSYS/VARSYS,
NO. OF SEASONS IN LOADSY = ## IN VARSYS = ## rerun applicable program(s). Rerun CONGEN
and then MERSIM.
7* FIXED + VARIABLE SYSTEMS INCLUDE: ### PLANTS (MAX. Error Reduce no. of FIXSYS plants (MAX = 90 -
PERMISSIBLE = ### VARSYS plants). Rerun FIXSYS, then
CONGEN and finally MERSIM.

304
Table 13.10. (page 2) Messages in the MERSIM module of WASP-IV

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES COMING FROM MAIN (cont.)

IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

8* CONFIGURATION GENERATOR FILE & SYSTEM Error Check number of seasons in data of LOADSY/FIXSYS/
DESCRIPTION FILES INCOMPATIBLE VARSYS. If incorrect rerun all modules up to MERSIM
NUMBER OF SEASONS IN CONGEN = ## IN VARSYS = ## inclusive. If correct rerun first CONGEN and then MERSIM.

9* CONFIGURATION GENERATOR FILE & SYSTEM Error Check no. of VARSYS plants. If incorrect rerun VARSYS,
DESCRIPTION FILES INCOMPATIBLE CONGEN, MERSIM. If correct rerun CONGEN/MERSIM.
NUMBER OF EXPANSION CANDIDATES IN CONGEN = ##
IN VARSYS = ##
10* FIXED SYSTEM & LOAD DESCRIPTION FILES INCOMPATIBLE Error Check input data to LOADSY or FIXSYS, correct and rerun
CURRENT YEAR IN FIXSYS = #### IN LOADSY = #### applicable program. Rerun CONGEN and MERSIM.

11** CHECK VALUE ON INDEX RECORD ### Error Revise record sequence and INDEX values in [Link]
file, correct and rerun the program.
12 CHECK MWB AGAINST MWC OF PLANT AAAA Error Correct capacity data of plant AAAA in FIXSYS or VARSYS.
Rerun applicable program. If new value of MWC for plant
AAAA is used, rerun CONGEN and MERSIM.
13 PLANT NO. ### IS WRONG IN POSITION NO. ### OF LOADING Error Correct L.O. (record type-2a in [Link] file) and rerun
ORDER the program.
14 HYDRO PLANT ### APPEARS IN LOADING ORDER Error Same instructions as for error message 13 above.
15 PLANT NO. ### IS NOT INCLUDED IN LOADING ORDER Error Correct L.O. instructions (SPNVAL, NOLO and NORDER
input data in applicable screens) and rerun the program.
16 NEW NUMBER OF FOURIER COEFF. EXCEEDS MAXIMUM Warning Correct value of NOCOF in MERSIM Input Data screen for
PERMITTED, WILL BE SET TO MAXIMUM further MERSIM runs. If no other error, proceed to DYNPRO.

305
 Table 13.10. (page 3) Messages in the MERSIM module of WASP-IV

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES COMING FROM MAIN (cont.)

IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

17* *** NO STATES DEFINED IN YEAR: #### *** Error Modify constraints in CONGEN, rerun the program and
verify that all years contain at least one configuration in
the printout. Rerun MERSIM.
18** BASIC ECONOMIC LOADING ORDER MUST BE DEFINED IN Error Correct record type-2 in [Link] file (NOLO
FIRST YEAR! NOLO = ## cannot be specified as 1 in the first year) and rerun
MERSIM.
19 CHECK CONFLICTING VALUES OF SPNVAL = ##.# AND NOLO = Error Correct L.O. instructions (SPNVAL cannot have values <
## 0.0 if NOLO = -1) and rerun MERSIM.

20 PLANT NO. ### FIXED MAINTENANCE DAYS : #### DIFFERENT Error Correct the input and rerun the program.
THAN IN FIXED OR VARIABLE SYSTEM : ####

21* THE NUMBER OF GROUP LIMITATIONS ARE DIFFERENT IN Error Check the FIXSYS and VARSYS inputs and rerun the
FIXSYS (##) AND VARSYS (##) INPUT FILES relevant module before resubmitting the MERSIM.

22* THE NAME OF REAL EMISSION # IS DIFFERENT IN FIXSYS Error Check the FIXSYS and VARSYS inputs and rerun the
(AAAA) AND VARSYS (AAAA) INPUT FILES relevant module before resubmitting the MERSIM.

23 THE INDEX OF GROUP LIMITATION ## IS DIFFERENT IN FIXSYS Error Check the FIXSYS and VARSYS inputs and rerun the
(##) AND VARSYS (##) INPUT FILES relevant module before resubmitting the MERSIM.

24* THE TEXT OF GROUP LIMITATION ## IS DIFFERENT IN FIXSYS Error Check the FIXSYS and VARSYS inputs and rerun the
(AAAA) AND VARSYS (AAAA) INPUT FILES relevant module before resubmitting the MERSIM.

306
Table 13.10. (page 4) Messages in the MERSIM module of WASP-IV

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES COMING FROM MAIN (cont.)

IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

26** INDEX OF THERMAL PLANT ### CONSIDERED FOR FIXED Error Check the input in [Link] file, correct and rerun
MAINTENANCE IS WRONG the program.
98 ERROR(S) AND/OR WARNING(S) ACCUMULATED THROUGH --- Follow instructions according to messages in the printout.
YEAR ####
99 ERROR(S) AND/OR WARNING(S) ACCUMULATED THROUGH --- Same instructions as for error message 98 above.
THIS RUN

FORM AND DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL ERROR MESSAGES COMING FROM SUB-ROUTINES

OF ERROR MESSAGE TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

SUBROUTINE

READFM ERROR ON FILE ## COMING FROM READFM, IR=### Error See Section 13.7.2 for instructions.

DIVLIM, IE=25 THE SUM OF GROUP-LIMIT RATIOS MUST BE Error Correct the input and rerun the program.
POSITIVE, IT IS: ###.####

* These errors are due to input data coming from preceding modules; they can occur only accidentally, if modules are not run properly or if the user interferes in the
automatic transfer of information between modules by the interface.

** These errors refer to own data of the current module but they can occur only accidentally if the user modifies the original [Link] input data file created
automatically by the interface.

307
13.7. Messages for DYNPRO

The error and warning messages in module DYNPRO are listed and described in Table 13.11,
which follows the same format considered for CONGEN and MERSIM in the preceding
sections.

13.7.1. Messages coming from MAIN

Messages (IE=) 1 and 2 normally occur when the VARSYS module has been rerun after
successful execution of MERSIM, and new values for the indicated variables were used in the
input data of the latest VARSYS run. To remove these messages from the DYNPRO report, it
may be sufficient to rerun the VARSYS module with corrected data and then rerun
DYNPRO. If the new values of the variables used in the latest VARSYS run are the intended
ones, it is also necessary to rerun CONGEN and reinitialize the MERSIM files with the
correct information before proceeding to run the DYNPRO module.

Messages (IE=) 3 are applicable to the input data used in the current DYNPRO run and their
description in Table 13.11 are self-explanatory.

Messages (IE=) 5 and 6 are similar in nature to messages 1 and 2 and usually occur when the
CONGEN module has been rerun after successful execution of MERSIM, using new values
for the indicated variables. If the data used in the latest CONGEN run are incorrect, simply
modify it, rerun CONGEN and proceed with a new execution of DYNPRO. If the data of the
latest CONGEN run are the ones to be retained in the study, it will also be necessary to rerun
VARSYS with the new values and reinitialize the MERSIM files with the correct information,
before proceeding to run the DYNPRO module.

Messages (IE=) 7 and 8 are also applicable to the input data given to DYNPRO and their
description in Table 13.11 are self-explanatory.

Messages (IE=) 9 to 11 as described in Table 13.11 are also self-explanatory. Message (IE=)
11, however, requires verification of the additional constraints given in DYNPRO for the
system LOLP and allowable number of units or projects of each expansion candidate per year
to be respected by the configurations of the system. If these additional constraints are not to
be changed, the user should proceed to execute a new run of CONGEN/MERSIM allowing
appropriate patterns of system development according to these constraints.

Message (IE=) 12 (same description as for messages 3 and 7-8 above).

Messages (IE=) 98, 99: Same remarks as in Section 13.6.1.

13.7.2. Message coming from subroutine READFD

Same comments made in Section 13.6.2 for similar messages in CONGEN are also valid here,
except that in DYNPRO these messages apply only to file 11 (VARSYS) since file 10
(FIXSYS) is not used by this module.

308
Table 13.11. (page 1) Messages in the DYNPRO module of WASP-IV
GENERAL FORM FOR ALL MESSAGES COMING FROM MAIN: ***** D IE ***** EC TEXT
DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES COMING FROM MAIN
IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE
USER
1* VARIABLE SYSTEM & SIMULATION FILE INCOMPATIBLE Error Check VARSYS input data and rerun applicable
NUMBER OF EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES IN VARSYS = ### IN modules from VARSYS through MERSIM.
SIMULATION FILES = ### Resubmit DYNPRO.
2* VARIABLE SYSTEM & SIMULATION FILES INCOMPATIBLE Error Same instructions as for error message 1 above.
NUMBER OF SEASONS IN VARSYS = ## IN SIMULATION FILES = ##
3 NO. OF YEARS IN STUDY PERIOD: ### (MAX. PERMISSIBLE = 30) Error Correct No. of years to be considered for
economic comparison in DYNPRO Input screen
and rerun the program.
5* VARIABLE SYSTEM & SIMULATION FILES INCOMPATIBLE WITH Error Check and correct input data to CONGEN, rerun
CONFIGURATION GENERATOR FILE it or, if necessary, rerun VARSYS and MERSIM.
NUMBER OF SEASONS IN VARSYS AND MERSIM = ## IN CONGEN = ## Rerun DYNPRO.
6* VARIABLE SYSTEM & SIMULATION FILES INCOMPATIBLE WITH Error Same instructions as for error message 5 above.
CONFIGURATION GENERATOR FILE
NUMBER OF EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES IN VARSYS AND MERSIM = ## IN
CONGEN = ##
7** CHECK VALUE ON INDEX RECORD ### Error Check record sequence and INDEX values in
[Link] file and rerun the program.
8 INPUT VALUE OF NBEST ### IS WRONG, IT WILL BE CHANGED TO DEFAULT Warning Correct No. of best solutions to be reported in
DYNPRO screen. The program changes NBEST
to 5.
9 CONFIGURATION NOT IN SIMULATION FILE IFEEZO = ####........ Error Check whether MERSIM was run after
CONGEN; rerun it and check if printout is
complete. Rerun DYNPRO.
10* NUMBER OF STATES IN THIS RUN = ##### (MAX. PERMISSIBLE = 5000) Error Modify constraints in CONGEN; rerun
CONGEN through DYNPRO.

309
 Table 13.11. (page 2) Messages in the DYNPRO module of WASP-IV
DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES COMING FROM MAIN (cont.)
IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER
11 NO ACCESSIBLE TRANSITION FROM PREVIOUS YEAR Error Modify constraints in DYNPRO and rerun it.
12 VALUE OF RTESLO (##) IS 0.0 OR BLANK, RESET TO 1.0 BY PROGRAM Warning Correct Annual escalation ratio for O&M
(domestic) cost in the Annual Data for
DYNPRO screen for the indicated fuel type
index (##) and rerun DYNPRO.
(Fuel type index is 1, 2, ...,13 for "fuel" type code 0,
1, ...,12 respectively).
14 VALUE OF EOPL (##) IS 0.0 OR BLANK, RESET TO 1.0 BY PROGRAM Warning Correct Annual escalation ratio for
15 VALUE OF EOPF (##) IS 0.0 OR BLANK, RESET TO 1.0 BY PROGRAM Warning domestic or foreign fuel costs in the
Annual Data for DYNPRO screen for the
indicated fuel type index (##) and rerun
DYNPRO.
(Fuel type index is 1, 2, ...,13 for "fuel" type code 0,
1, ...,12 respectively).
98 ERROR(S) AND/OR WARNING(S) ACCUMULATED THROUGH THIS YEAR --- Follow instructions according to messages in
printout.
99 ERROR(S) AND/OR WARNING(S) ACCUMULATED THROUGH THIS RUN --- Same as for error message 98 above.

FORM AND DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL ERROR MESSAGES COMING FROM SUB-ROUTINES

OF ERROR MESSAGE TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE

SUBROUTINE USER

READFD ERROR ON FILE ## COMING FROM READFD, IR=### Error See Section 13.8.2 for instructions.

* These errors are due to input data coming from preceding modules; they can occur only accidentally, if modules are not run properly or if the user interferes in the
automatic transfer of information between modules by the interface.

** These errors refer to own data of the current module but they can occur only accidentally if the user modifies the original [Link] input data file created
automatically by the interface.

310
13.8. Messages for REPROBAT

The error messages in REPROBAT are summarized in Table 13.12 (warning message
displayed by the user interface) and Table 13.13 (messages from REPROBAT module of the
WASP-IV main code). Table 13.13 includes similar information as for the preceding modules
but in addition this table indicates the subroutine where the respective message is originated
from. The information presented in Table 13.13 is considered self-explanatory.

Table 13.12 User interface warning messages for REPROBAT module of WASP-IV
TEXT REASON OF THE MESSAGE

No Committed plants exists in FIXSYS Attempt to click the Cost Data for FIXSYS
Plants button in screen REPROBAT Input
Data for a case without committed plants in
FIXSYS.

It should be borne in mind that REPROBAT uses the current information existing in the
various files created by the preceding modules according to the report options specified for
the run. This information is simply read by REPROBAT without repeating the validity checks
of consistency which were already performed by CONGEN, MERSIM and DYNPRO. The
program, however, does perform validity checks of the input data used for the run against the
information retrieved from files and against the program capabilities. Therefore, the user
should verify that the REPROBAT printout does not include any error message and, in
addition, that it contains the intended information in the various reports. If this is not the case,
the applicable module(s) have to be rerun to recreate the respective files.

13.8.1. Messages coming from MAIN, INIT, INIT2A, FIXPLT, NULED1 or CONCOS

These messages are printed following the general form shown at the top of Table 13.13.
Removal of these messages from the REPROBAT printout is simply done following the
instructions indicated in this table.

311
 Table 13.13. (page 1) Messages in the REPROBAT module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR MESSAGES COMING FROM SUBROUTINES INDICATED BELOW: ***** R IE ***** IEC TEXT
DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES

SUBROUTINE IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

INIT 1 NUMBER OF YEARS IN STUDY PERIOD : ### Error Correct Initial and Last year of study in REPROBAT
(MAX. PERMISSIBLE = 30) Input Data screen. Rerun program.
INIT 2** CHECK VALUE ON INDEX RECORD ### Error Check record sequence and INDEX values in
[Link] file, correct and rerun the program.
INIT 3 PLANNING PERIOD: #### - #### IS NOT EMBEDDED Error Correct planning period in REPROBAT Input Data
IN STUDY PERIOD screen and rerun the program.
INIT 4** DATE AND/OR -CARRIED OUT BY- Error Check that records type-6 are correct and in the proper
INFORMATION IS WRONG OR MISSING sequence in [Link] file. Rerun program.
INIT 5** NUMBER OF LEGEND RECORDS EXCEEDS 60 Error Reduce number of data records type-7 to at least 60 in
[Link] file and rerun the program.
INIT 6** CHECK LAST RECORD OF/AFTER LEGEND. IS IT A Error Check and correct sequence of input data and rerun the
VALID INDEX ? program.
FIXPLT 7 INCREASE DIMENSION OF IPOTHS(500) IN Error Try to reduce number of additions or retirements.
SUBROUTINE FIXPLT, TOO MANY ADDITIONS OR Otherwise, contact the WASP analyst.
RETIREMENTS
FIXPLT 8 GIVEN STUDY PERIOD IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH Error Make study period match Common Case Data and,
FIXED SYSTEM consequently, FIXSYS information. Rerun program.
CONCOS / 9 NUMBER OF YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE Error Correct total range of construction period of all candidate
INIT2A CONSIDERED IN CASH FLOW CALCULATION IS and decided units in DYNPRO and REPROBAT (not to
### YEARS (MAX. PERMISSIBLE = 40) exceed 40 years). Rerun DYNPRO – REPROBAT.
CONCOS / 10 TIME OF CONSTRUCTION OF PLANT AAAA IS Error Correct construction time and rerun REPROBAT.
INIT2A ###.##

312
 Table 13.13. (page 2) Messages in the REPROBAT module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR MESSAGES COMING FROM SUBROUTINES INDICATED BELOW: ***** R IE ***** IEC TEXT
DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES
SUBROUTINE IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

CONCOS 11 NUMBER OF PLANTS TO BE BUILT EXCEEDS 200, INCREASE Error Try to reduce number of plants to be built.
DIMENSION OF ARRAYS MINYC & MINYF IN SUBROUTINE CONCOS Otherwise, contact the WASP analyst.

NULED1 12 INCREASE DIMENSION OF NADD(99) AND DATA ASSIGNMENT IN Error Try to reduce number of units to be added or
SUBROUTINE NULED1, TOO MANY ADDITIONS (= ###) retired for the same plant in the same year.
Otherwise, contact the WASP analyst.
NULED1 13 INCREASE DIMENSION OF NRET(99) AND DATA ASSIGNMENT IN Error
SUBROUTINE NULED1, TOO MANY RETIREMENTS (= ###)
INIT 14 IF INDEX = 7 THE PRINTOUT OPTION IOPLST (8) MUST BE >0 (RESET Warning Correct appropriate option in REPROBAT
BY PROGRAM) Input data screen and rerun the program.
INIT2A 15** NAME OF CANDIDATE ## IN DYNPRO = AAAA IS INCOMPATIBLE Error Check and correct [Link] file and
WITH INPUT = AAAA rerun the program.

INIT2A 16 SUM OF % DOM./FOR. CONSTR. COST IS NOT 100.0 IN SET ## Error Check and correct the Annual distribution of
(DYNPRO) FOR THERMAL CANDIDATE AAAA (SUM % = ###.##) total pure construction cost for the specified
plant in VARSYS Plants Cost Data screen.
INIT2A 17 SUM OF % DOM./FOR. FUEL INVENTORY COST IS NOT 100.0 IN SET Error This error could occur only if the
## (DYNPRO) FOR THERMAL CANDIDATE AAAA (SUM % = ###.##) [Link] file is edited manually by
the user.

INIT2A 18** NAME OF HYDRO OR P-S PROJECT ## IN DYNPRO = AAAA IS Error See error 15.
INCOMPATIBLE WITH INPUT = AAAA

INIT2A 19 SUM OF % DOM./FOR. CONSTR. COST IS NOT 100.0 IN SET ## Error See error 16.
(DYNPRO) FOR HYDRO OR P-S PROJECT AAAA OF TYPE AAAA
(SUM % = ###.##)

313
 Table 13.13. (page 3) Messages in the REPROBAT module of WASP-IV

GENERAL FORM FOR MESSAGES COMING FROM SUBROUTINES INDICATED BELOW: ***** R IE ***** IEC TEXT

DESCRIPTION OF THE MESSAGES

SUBROUTINE IE TEXT TYPE ACTION(S) TO BE TAKEN BY THE USER

INIT2A 20 SUM OF % DOM./FOR. CONSTR. COST IS NOT 100.0 Error Check and correct the Annual distribution of pure
FOR construction cost for the specified plant in FIXSYS
COMMITTED PLANT AAAA (SUM % = ###.##) Plants Cost Data screen.

INIT2A 21 SUM OF % DOM./FOR. FUEL INVENTORY COST IS Error This error could occur only if the
NOT 100.0 FOR COMMITTED PLANT AAAA (SUM % = [Link] file is edited manually by the
###.##) user.
INIT2A 22 SUM OF % DOM./FOR. INTEREST DURING CONSTR. Error Check and correct the Annual distribution of IDC
IS NOT 100.0 FOR COMMITTED PLANT AAAA (SUM % for the specified plant in FIXSYS Plants Cost
= ###.##) Data screen.
MAIN 23 SUBOPTION IOPSIM CAN ONLY BE ACTIVE AFTER Warning See error 14.
RESIMULATION (RESET BY PROGRAM)
INIT 24 NUMBER OF INDEX = 7 RECORDS EXCEEDS Error Reduce the FIXSYS plants with cost data specified
MAXIMUM OF 20 in REPROBAT.
MAIN 25 SUBOPTION IOPPOL CAN ONLY BE ACTIVE FOR GL Warning See error 14.
AFTER RESIMULATION (RESET BY PROGRAM)
MAIN 99 ERROR(S) AND/OR WARNING(S) ACCUMULATED Error Follow instructions for errors above
THROUGH THIS RUN

* These errors are due to input data coming from preceding modules; they can occur only accidentally, if modules are not run properly or if the user interferes in the
automatic transfer of information between modules by the interface.

** These errors refer to own data of the current module but they can occur only accidentally if the user modifies the original [Link] input data file created
automatically by the interface.

314
 REFERENCES

[1] Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Wien Automatic System Planning Package (WASP):
An Electric Expansion Utility Optimal Generation Expansion Planning Computer Code,
Rep. ORNL-4925 (1974).
[2] International Atomic Energy Agency, Market Survey for Nuclear Power in Developing
Countries: General report, IAEA, Vienna (1973).
[3] Covarrubias, A.J., Heinrich, P. Molina, P.E., "Development of the WASP-III at the
International Atomic Energy Agency", in Proc. Conf. Electric Generation System
Expansion Analysis (WASP Conf.), Ohio State University, Columbus (1981).
[4] International Atomic Energy Agency, Model for Analysis of Energy Demand (MAED):
Users' Manual for MAED-1 Version, IAEA-TECDOC-386, IAEA,Vienna (1986).
[5] International Atomic Energy Agency, VALORAGUA - A Model for the Optimal
Operating Strategy of Mixed Hydrothermal Generating Systems, Users' Manual for the
Mainframe Computer Version, IAEA Computer Manual Series No. 4, IAEA, Vienna
(1992).
[6] International Atomic Energy Agency, WASP-III Version for IBM-PC (ADB version,
IAEA Internal Document, IAEA,Vienna (1987).
[7] International Atomic Energy Agency, MAED-1 Version for IBM-PC, IAEA Internal
Document,IAEA,Vienna (1988).
[8] Argonne national laboratory, Energy and Power Evaluation Program (ENPEP),
Documentation and User's Manual, ANL/EES-TM-317, Argonne, IL (1987).
[9] International Atomic Energy Agency, PC-VALORAGUA Users' Guide -
Microcomputer Version of the VALORAGUA Program for the Optimal Operating
Strategy of Mixed Hydrothermal Generating Systems, IAEA Computer Manual Series
No. 5, IAEA,Vienna (1992).
[10] International Atomic Energy Agency, Experience with WASP among IAEA Member
States Participating in the Regional Co-operative Agreement (RCA) in Asia and the
Pacific Region (proceedings of the RCA Workshop, Jakarta, 7-11 December 1987),
IAEA TECDOC-474, IAEA,Vienna (1988).
[11] International Atomic Energy Agency, Experience with WASP and MAED among IAEA
member States Participating in the Regional Co-operative Agreement (RCA) in Asia
and the Pacific Region (Proceedings of a RCA Workshop, Kuala Lumpur, 5-9
December 1988, IAEA TECDOC-528, Vienna (1989).
[12] International Atomic Energy Agency, Experience in Energy and Electricity Supply and
demand Planning with Emphasis on MAED and WASP among Member States of
Europe, Middle East and North Africa (Proceedings of a Workshop, Nicosia, Cyprus,
11-15 December 1989, IAEA TECDOC-607, IAEA, Vienna (1991).
[13] International Atomic Energy Agency, Wien Automatic System Planning (WASP)
Package – A Computer Code for Power Generating System Expansion Planning,
Version WASP-III Plus User’s manual, Volume I: Chapters 1-11, Volume II:
Appendices, IAEA Computer Manual Series No. 8, IAEA, Vienna (1995).
[14] International Atomic Energy Agency, Electricity and the Environment, International.
Symposium, Helsinki, 13-17 May 1991, Proceedings Series, STI/PUB/877,
IAEA,Vienna (1991).

315
[15] International Atomic Energy Agency, Wien Automatic System Planning (WASP)
Package – A Computer Code for Power Generating System Expansion Planning,
Version WASP-IV User’s Manual, IAEA Computer Manual Series No. 16, IAEA,
Vienna (2001).
[16] International Atomic Energy Agency, Energy and Electricity Planning Study for Jordan
up to the Year 2010, IAEA TECDOC-439, IAEA,Vienna (1987).
[17] International Atomic Energy Agency, Energy and Nuclear Power Planning Study for
Thailand, IAEA TECDOC Series No. 518, Vienna, Austria (1989).
[18] International Atomic Energy Agency, Energy and Nuclear Power Planning Study for
Romania (Covering the Period 1989-2010), IAEA TECDOC-820,IAEA,Vienna (1995).
[19] International Atomic Energy Agency, Energy and Nuclear Power Planning Using the
IAEA’s ENPEP Computer Package, IAEA TECDOC-963, IAEA,Vienna (1997).
[20] International Atomic Energy Agency, Energy and Nuclear Power Planning Study for
Pakistan (Covering the Period 1993-2023), IAEA TECDOC-1030, IAEA,Vienna
(1998).
[21] International Atomic Energy Agency, Energy and Nuclear Power Planning Study for
Armenia, IAEA TECDOC-1404, IAEA,Vienna (2004).
[22] International Atomic Energy Agency, Energy Supply Options for Lithuania, IAEA
TECDOC-1408, IAEA,Vienna (2004).

316
 CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW

Bui, Thanh Duy International Atomic Energy Agency

Fulop, J. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary

Gritsevskyi, A. International Atomic Energy Agency

Hamilton, Bruce International Atomic Energy Agency

Heinrich, Peter International Atomic Energy Agency

Hoffer, J. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary

Jalal, Ahmed Irej International Atomic Energy Agency

Kizhakkekara ,Jose International Atomic Energy Agency

Koritarov, V. Argonne National Laboratory, USA

Korres, G. National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Latif, Muhammad Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, Pakistan

Molina, P.E. International Atomic Energy Agency

Naqvi, Farzana Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, Pakistan

Valcereanu, G. International Atomic Energy Agency

317